FileBrowser Quantum vs Kubo (IPFS)
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted file sync & storage options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
FileBrowser Quantum
Enhanced web file manager fork with extra features
VS
Kubo (IPFS)
Reference implementation of the InterPlanetary File System
| Feature | FileBrowser Quantum | Kubo (IPFS) |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | docker, binary, snap |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7,695 | ★ 17,093 |
| First released | 2024 | 2015 |
| Replaces | Google Drive, Dropbox | Dropbox |
Why pick each one
Choose FileBrowser Quantum if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 7.7k GitHub stars
Choose Kubo (IPFS) if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 17.1k GitHub stars
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is FileBrowser Quantum or Kubo (IPFS) better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while FileBrowser Quantum is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are FileBrowser Quantum and Kubo (IPFS) free and open-source?
Yes. FileBrowser Quantum is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Kubo (IPFS) under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run FileBrowser Quantum and Kubo (IPFS) with Docker?
FileBrowser Quantum: yes. Kubo (IPFS): yes.