Kubo (IPFS) vs Spacedrive

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?
FeatureKubo (IPFS)Spacedrive
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITAGPL-3.0
LanguageGoRust
Setup difficultyHardMedium
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binary, snapbinary
GitHub stars★ 17,093★ 38,732
First released20152022
ReplacesDropboxGoogle Drive, 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
Kubo (IPFS) details

Choose Spacedrive if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • Mature project with 38.7k GitHub stars
  • Written in Rust
  • Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
Spacedrive details

Frequently asked questions

Is Kubo (IPFS) or Spacedrive better?

Spacedrive is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler medium setup. Consider Kubo (IPFS) if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

Are Kubo (IPFS) and Spacedrive free and open-source?

Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and Spacedrive under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Kubo (IPFS) and Spacedrive with Docker?

Kubo (IPFS): yes. Spacedrive: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons