FileBrowser Quantum vs SeaweedFS

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?
FeatureFileBrowser QuantumSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0Apache-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM128 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 7,695★ 33,952
First released20242015
ReplacesGoogle Drive, DropboxAmazon S3

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
FileBrowser Quantum details

Choose SeaweedFS if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
  • Mature project with 34k GitHub stars
SeaweedFS details

Frequently asked questions

Is FileBrowser Quantum or SeaweedFS better?

Neither is universally better. SeaweedFS 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 SeaweedFS free and open-source?

Yes. FileBrowser Quantum is licensed under Apache-2.0 and SeaweedFS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run FileBrowser Quantum and SeaweedFS with Docker?

FileBrowser Quantum: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons