Kubo (IPFS) vs OpenCloud
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?
Kubo (IPFS)
Reference implementation of the InterPlanetary File System
VS
OpenCloud
Modern open-source file platform from ownCloud team
| Feature | Kubo (IPFS) | OpenCloud |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, snap | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 17,093 | ★ 5,792 |
| First released | 2015 | 2025 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | Dropbox, Google Drive |
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
Choose OpenCloud if…
- Modern, fast codebase
- Lightweight footprint
- Permissively licensed
Frequently asked questions
Is Kubo (IPFS) or OpenCloud better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while OpenCloud is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Kubo (IPFS) and OpenCloud free and open-source?
Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and OpenCloud under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kubo (IPFS) and OpenCloud with Docker?
Kubo (IPFS): yes. OpenCloud: yes.