Kubo (IPFS) vs ShareDrop
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
ShareDrop
Peer-to-peer file transfer in the browser
| Feature | Kubo (IPFS) | ShareDrop |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Go | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, snap | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 17,093 | ★ 10,747 |
| First released | 2015 | 2014 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | AirDrop, WeTransfer |
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 ShareDrop if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 10.7k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is Kubo (IPFS) or ShareDrop better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while ShareDrop is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Kubo (IPFS) and ShareDrop free and open-source?
Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and ShareDrop under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kubo (IPFS) and ShareDrop with Docker?
Kubo (IPFS): yes. ShareDrop: yes.