ShareDrop 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?
FeatureShareDropSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguageJavaScriptGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, bare-metaldocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 10,747★ 33,952
First released20142015
ReplacesAirDrop, WeTransferAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose ShareDrop if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 10.7k GitHub stars
ShareDrop 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 ShareDrop or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are ShareDrop and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run ShareDrop and SeaweedFS with Docker?

ShareDrop: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons