Kubo (IPFS) vs SFTPGo
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
SFTPGo
Full-featured SFTP, FTP and WebDAV server
| Feature | Kubo (IPFS) | SFTPGo |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, snap | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 17,093 | ★ 12,371 |
| First released | 2015 | 2019 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | 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
Choose SFTPGo if…
- Multi-protocol in one binary
- Flexible storage backends
- Strong access controls
Frequently asked questions
Is Kubo (IPFS) or SFTPGo better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while SFTPGo is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Kubo (IPFS) and SFTPGo free and open-source?
Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and SFTPGo under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kubo (IPFS) and SFTPGo with Docker?
Kubo (IPFS): yes. SFTPGo: yes.