mikochi 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?
FeaturemikochiSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguageJavaScriptGo
Setup difficultyMediumHard
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, kubernetesdocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 369★ 33,952
First released20262015
ReplacesAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose mikochi if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
  • Written in JavaScript
mikochi 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 mikochi or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are mikochi and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run mikochi and SeaweedFS with Docker?

mikochi: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons