Kubo (IPFS) vs Seafile
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
Seafile
High-performance file sync and share with block storage
| Feature | Kubo (IPFS) | Seafile |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | C |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, snap | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 17,093 | ★ 15,077 |
| First released | 2015 | 2012 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | Dropbox, Google Drive |
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 Seafile if…
- Excellent sync performance
- Stable and battle-tested
- Good for large libraries
Frequently asked questions
Is Kubo (IPFS) or Seafile better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while Seafile is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Kubo (IPFS) and Seafile free and open-source?
Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and Seafile under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kubo (IPFS) and Seafile with Docker?
Kubo (IPFS): yes. Seafile: yes.