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?
FeatureFile BrowserKubo (IPFS)
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0MIT
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary, snap
GitHub stars★ 35,800★ 17,093
First released20172015
ReplacesDropboxDropbox

Why pick each one

Choose File Browser if…

  • Extremely lightweight
  • Trivial to deploy
  • Good for quick file access
File Browser details

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
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 Kubo (IPFS) 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.

Related comparisons