Puter 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?
FeaturePuterSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseAGPL-3.0Apache-2.0
LanguageTypeScriptGo
Setup difficultyMediumHard
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentdockerdocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 43,003★ 33,952
First released20262015
ReplacesAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose Puter if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 43k GitHub stars
  • Written in TypeScript
Puter 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 Puter or SeaweedFS better?

Puter is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler medium setup. Consider SeaweedFS if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

Are Puter and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

Yes. Puter is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and SeaweedFS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Puter and SeaweedFS with Docker?

Puter: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons