SHSelfHostIndex

Kubo (IPFS) vs SparkleShare

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?
KU Kubo (IPFS) Reference implementation of the InterPlanetary File System VS SP SparkleShare Git-backed file synchronization with version history
FeatureKubo (IPFS)SparkleShare
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITGPL-3.0
LanguageGoC#
Setup difficultyHardMedium
Min. RAM512 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binary, snapbare-metal, binary
GitHub stars★ 17,093★ 4,971
First released20152010
ReplacesDropboxDropbox

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 SparkleShare if…

  • Full history of every change
  • Works over plain SSH
SparkleShare details

Frequently asked questions

Is Kubo (IPFS) or SparkleShare better?

Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while SparkleShare is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

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

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

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

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

Related comparisons