Conduit File Sync vs SeaweedFS

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?
FeatureConduit File SyncSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM128 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 7,221★ 33,952
First released20132015
ReplacesDropboxAmazon S3

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
Conduit File Sync details

Choose SeaweedFS if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
  • Mature project with 34k GitHub stars
SeaweedFS details

Frequently asked questions

Is Conduit File Sync or SeaweedFS better?

Neither is universally better. SeaweedFS 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 SeaweedFS free and open-source?

Yes. Conduit File Sync is licensed under MIT and SeaweedFS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Conduit File Sync and SeaweedFS with Docker?

Conduit File Sync: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons