FilePizza 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?
FeatureFilePizzaSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseBSD-3-ClauseApache-2.0
LanguageTypeScriptGo
Setup difficultyMediumHard
Min. RAM50 MB512 MB
Deploymentbare-metaldocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 10,129★ 33,952
First released20232015
ReplacesWeTransferAmazon S3

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
FilePizza 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 FilePizza or SeaweedFS better?

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

Yes. FilePizza is licensed under BSD-3-Clause and SeaweedFS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run FilePizza and SeaweedFS with Docker?

FilePizza: check the project docs for container support. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons