SeaweedFS vs Send

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?
FeatureSeaweedFSSend
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0MPL-2.0
LanguageGoJavaScript
Setup difficultyHardMedium
Min. RAM512 MB256 MB
Deploymentdocker, kubernetes, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 33,952★ 5,847
First released20152020
ReplacesAmazon S3WeTransfer, Firefox Send

Why pick each one

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

Choose Send if…

  • Released under the MPL-2.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 5.8k GitHub stars
  • Written in JavaScript
Send details

Frequently asked questions

Is SeaweedFS or Send better?

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

Are SeaweedFS and Send free and open-source?

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

Can I run SeaweedFS and Send with Docker?

SeaweedFS: yes. Send: yes.

Related comparisons