gocryptfs 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?
FeaturegocryptfsSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyMediumHard
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentbare-metal, binarydocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 4,549★ 33,952
First released20162015
ReplacesBoxcryptorAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose gocryptfs if…

  • Efficient incremental sync
  • Well documented
gocryptfs 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 gocryptfs or SeaweedFS better?

Neither is universally better. SeaweedFS has the larger community, while gocryptfs is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are gocryptfs and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run gocryptfs and SeaweedFS with Docker?

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

Related comparisons