Conduit File Sync vs Seafile
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?
Conduit File Sync
Lightweight folder synchronization for small teams
VS
Seafile
High-performance file sync and share with block storage
| Feature | Conduit File Sync | Seafile |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | C |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7,221 | ★ 15,077 |
| First released | 2013 | 2012 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | Dropbox, Google Drive |
Why pick each one
Choose Conduit File Sync if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 7.2k GitHub stars
Choose Seafile if…
- Excellent sync performance
- Stable and battle-tested
- Good for large libraries
Frequently asked questions
Is Conduit File Sync or Seafile better?
Neither is universally better. Seafile has the larger community, while Conduit File Sync is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Conduit File Sync and Seafile free and open-source?
Yes. Conduit File Sync is licensed under MIT and Seafile under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conduit File Sync and Seafile with Docker?
Conduit File Sync: yes. Seafile: yes.