SHSelfHostIndex

File Browser 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?
File Browser Archived Lightweight web file manager for a directory VS KU Kubo (IPFS) Reference implementation of the InterPlanetary File System
FeatureFile BrowserKubo (IPFS)
Deploy effortUnder-an-hour setupUnder-an-hour setup
Health score15 · At risk95 · Excellent
StatusArchivedActively maintained
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0MIT
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary, snap
GitHub stars★ 35,937★ 17,139
First released20172015
ReplacesDropboxDropbox

What are File Browser and Kubo (IPFS)?

File Browser

File Browser provides a clean web interface to manage files within a specified directory, supporting upload, download, sharing, and user accounts. It suits users who want simple browser-based access to a folder rather than a full sync platform. It ships as a single Go binary and a small Docker image.

  • Single-binary web file manager
  • User accounts and share links
  • Built-in editor and previews
  • Minimal resource usage

Read the full File Browser guide →

Kubo (IPFS)

Kubo is the reference implementation of IPFS, a peer-to-peer hypermedia protocol for decentralized file storage and sharing. It enables content-addressed distribution of files across a global network.

  • Content-addressed storage
  • Decentralized peer-to-peer network
  • HTTP gateway support

Read the full Kubo (IPFS) guide →

File Browser vs Kubo (IPFS): key differences

The biggest difference is maintenance: File Browser's repository is archived and no longer developed, while Kubo (IPFS) is actively maintained. Both projects are written in Go. Licensing differs — Apache-2.0 for File Browser versus MIT for Kubo (IPFS). File Browser is the lighter option, starting around 64 MB of RAM against 512 MB for Kubo (IPFS). Kubo (IPFS) is the more established project (first released 2015), while File Browser arrived in 2017. File Browser has the considerably larger community, at 35,937 GitHub stars versus 17,139.

Why pick each one

Choose File Browser if…

  • Extremely lightweight
  • Trivial to deploy
  • Good for quick file access

Watch out for

  • No sync client
  • Limited collaboration features
File Browser details

Choose Kubo (IPFS) if…

  • Content-addressed storage
  • Censorship resistant
  • Reference IPFS implementation

Watch out for

  • Heavy bandwidth chatter
  • Content vanishes without pinning
  • Concepts take learning
Kubo (IPFS) details

Frequently asked questions

Is File Browser or Kubo (IPFS) better?

File Browser is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider File Browser if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

Are File Browser and Kubo (IPFS) free and open-source?

Yes. File Browser is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Kubo (IPFS) under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run File Browser and Kubo (IPFS) with Docker?

File Browser: yes. Kubo (IPFS): yes.

Which is lighter on resources, File Browser or Kubo (IPFS)?

File Browser has the smaller minimum footprint at 64 MB of RAM, compared to about 512 MB for Kubo (IPFS). Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.

Related comparisons