SHSelfHostIndex

Kubo (IPFS) vs WebDAV Server Go

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 WE WebDAV Server Go Lightweight standalone WebDAV file server
FeatureKubo (IPFS)WebDAV Server Go
Deploy effortUnder-an-hour setupUnder-an-hour setup
Health score95 · Excellent90 · Excellent
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITMIT
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyHardEasy
Min. RAM512 MB64 MB
Deploymentdocker, binary, snapdocker, binary
GitHub stars★ 17,139★ 5,877
First released20152017
ReplacesDropboxDropbox

What are Kubo (IPFS) and WebDAV Server Go?

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

Read the full Kubo (IPFS) guide →

WebDAV Server Go

A lightweight standalone WebDAV server that exposes a directory tree for syncing with WebDAV-capable clients. It is useful as a minimal sync backend for many file managers and apps.

  • Standalone WebDAV
  • Per-user permissions
  • Minimal backend
  • Cross-platform clients

Kubo (IPFS) vs WebDAV Server Go: key differences

Both projects are written in Go. WebDAV Server Go is the lighter option, starting around 64 MB of RAM against 512 MB for Kubo (IPFS). Kubo (IPFS) is the more established project (first released 2015), while WebDAV Server Go arrived in 2017. Kubo (IPFS) has the considerably larger community, at 17,139 GitHub stars versus 5,877.

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
Kubo (IPFS) details

Choose WebDAV Server Go if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 5.9k GitHub stars
WebDAV Server Go details

Frequently asked questions

Is Kubo (IPFS) or WebDAV Server Go better?

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

Are Kubo (IPFS) and WebDAV Server Go free and open-source?

Yes. Kubo (IPFS) is licensed under MIT and WebDAV Server Go under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Kubo (IPFS) and WebDAV Server Go with Docker?

Kubo (IPFS): yes. WebDAV Server Go: yes.

Which is lighter on resources, Kubo (IPFS) or WebDAV Server Go?

WebDAV Server Go has the smaller minimum footprint at 64 MB of RAM, compared to about 512 MB for Kubo (IPFS). Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.

Related comparisons