Kubo (IPFS) vs elFinder
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
elFinder
Web file manager with a desktop-style interface
| Feature | Kubo (IPFS) | elFinder |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | BSD-3-Clause |
| Language | Go | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, snap | bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 17,093 | ★ 4,800 |
| First released | 2015 | 2010 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | Google Drive, 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 elFinder if…
- Released under the BSD-3-Clause license
- Active community (4.8k GitHub stars)
- Written in JavaScript
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Kubo (IPFS) or elFinder better?
Neither is universally better. Kubo (IPFS) has the larger community, while elFinder is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Kubo (IPFS) and elFinder free and open-source?
Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and elFinder under BSD-3-Clause. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kubo (IPFS) and elFinder with Docker?
Kubo (IPFS): yes. elFinder: check the project docs for container support.