Kubo (IPFS) vs Magic Wormhole
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
Magic Wormhole
Get things from one computer to another, safely
| Feature | Kubo (IPFS) | Magic Wormhole |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Go | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 32 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, snap | binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 17,093 | ★ 22,792 |
| First released | 2015 | 2016 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | WeTransfer, AirDrop |
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 Magic Wormhole if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Mature project with 22.8k GitHub stars
- Written in Python
Frequently asked questions
Is Kubo (IPFS) or Magic Wormhole better?
Magic Wormhole is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Kubo (IPFS) if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Kubo (IPFS) and Magic Wormhole free and open-source?
Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and Magic Wormhole under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kubo (IPFS) and Magic Wormhole with Docker?
Kubo (IPFS): yes. Magic Wormhole: check the project docs for container support.