qrcp 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?
FeatureqrcpSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentbinary, bare-metaldocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 10,491★ 33,952
First released20182015
ReplacesAirDrop, SnapdropAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose qrcp if…

  • Instant phone transfers
  • Zero configuration
qrcp 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 qrcp or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are qrcp and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run qrcp and SeaweedFS with Docker?

qrcp: check the project docs for container support. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons