Passky Client 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?
FeaturePassky ClientSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicensefreeApache-2.0
LanguageJavaScriptGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, one-clickdocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 34★ 33,952
First released20222015
ReplacesAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose Passky Client if…

  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • One-click install on common self-host platforms
  • Written in JavaScript
Passky Client 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 Passky Client or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are Passky Client and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

Yes. Passky Client is licensed under free and SeaweedFS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Passky Client and SeaweedFS with Docker?

Passky Client: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons