Filestash vs Kubo (IPFS)
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted apps from related categories — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Filestash
Web-based file manager and document gateway
VS
Kubo (IPFS)
Reference implementation of the InterPlanetary File System
| Feature | Filestash | Kubo (IPFS) |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Document Management | File Sync & Storage |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, bare-metal | docker, binary, snap |
| GitHub stars | ★ 14,451 | ★ 17,093 |
| First released | 2017 | 2015 |
| Replaces | Dropbox, SharePoint | Dropbox |
Why pick each one
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 Filestash or Kubo (IPFS) better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while Filestash is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Filestash and Kubo (IPFS) free and open-source?
Yes. Filestash is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and Kubo (IPFS) under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Filestash and Kubo (IPFS) with Docker?
Filestash: yes. Kubo (IPFS): yes.