Magic Wormhole 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?
FeatureMagic WormholeSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguagePythonGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM32 MB512 MB
Deploymentbinarydocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 22,792★ 33,952
First released20162015
ReplacesWeTransfer, AirDropAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose Magic Wormhole if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Mature project with 22.8k GitHub stars
  • Written in Python
Magic Wormhole 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 Magic Wormhole or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are Magic Wormhole and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run Magic Wormhole and SeaweedFS with Docker?

Magic Wormhole: check the project docs for container support. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons