FilePizza 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?
FilePizza
Peer-to-peer file transfers in your browser
VS
Kubo (IPFS)
Reference implementation of the InterPlanetary File System
| Feature | FilePizza | Kubo (IPFS) |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | BSD-3-Clause | MIT |
| Language | TypeScript | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 50 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal | docker, binary, snap |
| GitHub stars | ★ 10,129 | ★ 17,093 |
| First released | 2023 | 2015 |
| Replaces | WeTransfer | Dropbox |
Why pick each one
Choose FilePizza if…
- Released under the BSD-3-Clause license
- Mature project with 10.1k GitHub stars
- Written in TypeScript
- Tiny footprint — runs in 50 MB RAM
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 FilePizza or Kubo (IPFS) better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while FilePizza is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are FilePizza and Kubo (IPFS) free and open-source?
Yes. FilePizza is licensed under BSD-3-Clause and Kubo (IPFS) under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run FilePizza and Kubo (IPFS) with Docker?
FilePizza: check the project docs for container support. Kubo (IPFS): yes.