Kubo (IPFS) vs Conduit File Sync
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
Conduit File Sync
Lightweight folder synchronization for small teams
| Feature | Kubo (IPFS) | Conduit File Sync |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, snap | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 17,093 | ★ 7,221 |
| First released | 2015 | 2013 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | 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
Choose Conduit File Sync if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 7.2k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is Kubo (IPFS) or Conduit File Sync better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while Conduit File Sync is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Kubo (IPFS) and Conduit File Sync free and open-source?
Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and Conduit File Sync under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kubo (IPFS) and Conduit File Sync with Docker?
Kubo (IPFS): yes. Conduit File Sync: yes.