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?
Kubo (IPFS)
Reference implementation of the InterPlanetary File System
VS
WebDAV Server Go
Lightweight standalone WebDAV file server
| Feature | Kubo (IPFS) | WebDAV Server Go |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, snap | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 17,093 | ★ 5,750 |
| First released | 2015 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | 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 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 5.8k GitHub stars
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.