KoboldCpp vs llama.cpp

A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted local llm runners options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.

Not the right match-up?
FeatureKoboldCppllama.cpp
CategoryLocal LLM RunnersLocal LLM Runners
LicenseAGPL-3.0MIT
LanguageC++C++
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM8,192 MB8,192 MB
Deploymentbinary, bare-metalbinary, bare-metal, docker
GitHub stars★ 11,358★ 123,039
First released20232023
ReplacesChatGPTOpenAI API

Why pick each one

Choose KoboldCpp if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Mature project with 11.4k GitHub stars
  • Written in C++
KoboldCpp details

Choose llama.cpp if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 123k GitHub stars
  • Written in C++
llama.cpp details

Frequently asked questions

Is KoboldCpp or llama.cpp better?

Neither is universally better. llama.cpp has the larger community, while KoboldCpp is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are KoboldCpp and llama.cpp free and open-source?

Yes. KoboldCpp is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and llama.cpp under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run KoboldCpp and llama.cpp with Docker?

KoboldCpp: check the project docs for container support. llama.cpp: yes.

Related comparisons