Kubo (IPFS) vs Syncthing

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)Syncthing
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITMPL-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyHardEasy
Min. RAM512 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binary, snapdocker, binary, bare-metal
GitHub stars★ 17,093★ 87,439
First released20152014
ReplacesDropboxDropbox, Resilio Sync

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 Syncthing if…

  • No central server needed
  • Very private by design
  • Lightweight and reliable
Syncthing details

Frequently asked questions

Is Kubo (IPFS) or Syncthing better?

Syncthing is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Kubo (IPFS) if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

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

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

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

Kubo (IPFS): yes. Syncthing: yes.

Related comparisons