Kubo (IPFS) vs qrcp
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
qrcp
Transfer files to and from phones by scanning a QR code
| Feature | Kubo (IPFS) | qrcp |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, snap | binary, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 17,093 | ★ 10,491 |
| First released | 2015 | 2018 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | AirDrop, Snapdrop |
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
Frequently asked questions
Is Kubo (IPFS) or qrcp better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while qrcp is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Kubo (IPFS) and qrcp free and open-source?
Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and qrcp under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kubo (IPFS) and qrcp with Docker?
Kubo (IPFS): yes. qrcp: check the project docs for container support.