File Browser 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?
FeatureFile BrowserSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0Apache-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 35,800★ 33,952
First released20172015
ReplacesDropboxAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose File Browser if…

  • Extremely lightweight
  • Trivial to deploy
  • Good for quick file access
File Browser 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 File Browser or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are File Browser and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run File Browser and SeaweedFS with Docker?

File Browser: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons