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.
| Feature | Kubo (IPFS) | elFinder |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Under-an-hour setup | Read-the-docs project |
| Health score | 95 · Excellent | 87 · Excellent |
| 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 | ★ 17,139 | ★ 4,804 |
| First released | 2015 | 2010 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | Google Drive, Dropbox |
What are Kubo (IPFS) and elFinder?
Kubo (IPFS)
Kubo is the reference implementation of IPFS, a peer-to-peer hypermedia protocol for decentralized file storage and sharing. It enables content-addressed distribution of files across a global network.
- Content-addressed storage
- Decentralized peer-to-peer network
- HTTP gateway support
elFinder
elFinder is an open-source web file manager with a user interface inspired by the macOS Finder. It supports multiple storage backends, drag and drop, and image editing.
- macOS Finder-style UI
- Multiple storage backends
- Built-in image editor
Kubo (IPFS) vs elFinder: key differences
Kubo (IPFS) is written in Go, while elFinder is built with JavaScript. Licensing differs — MIT for Kubo (IPFS) versus BSD-3-Clause for elFinder. ElFinder is the lighter option, starting around 128 MB of RAM against 512 MB for Kubo (IPFS). ElFinder is the more established project (first released 2010), while Kubo (IPFS) arrived in 2015. Kubo (IPFS) has the considerably larger community, at 17,139 GitHub stars versus 4,804. Kubo (IPFS) lists first-class Docker deployment; elFinder does not.
Why pick each one
Choose Kubo (IPFS) if…
- Content-addressed storage
- Censorship resistant
- Reference IPFS implementation
Watch out for
- Heavy bandwidth chatter
- Content vanishes without pinning
- Concepts take learning
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.
Which is lighter on resources, Kubo (IPFS) or elFinder?
elFinder has the smaller minimum footprint at 128 MB of RAM, compared to about 512 MB for Kubo (IPFS). Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.