Kubo (IPFS) vs SeaweedFS

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)SeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyHardHard
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binary, snapdocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 17,093★ 33,952
First released20152015
ReplacesDropboxAmazon S3

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 SeaweedFS if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
  • Mature project with 34k GitHub stars
SeaweedFS details

Frequently asked questions

Is Kubo (IPFS) or SeaweedFS better?

Neither is universally better. SeaweedFS has the larger community; both share a hard setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.

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

Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and SeaweedFS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

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

Kubo (IPFS): yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons