SeaweedFS vs Stalwart

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?
FeatureSeaweedFSStalwart
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0free
LanguageGoRust
Setup difficultyHardEasy
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, kubernetes, binarydocker, one-click
GitHub stars★ 33,952★ 14,059
First released20152022
ReplacesAmazon S3

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 Stalwart if…

  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • One-click install on common self-host platforms
  • Mature project with 14.1k GitHub stars
Stalwart details

Frequently asked questions

Is SeaweedFS or Stalwart better?

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

Are SeaweedFS and Stalwart free and open-source?

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

Can I run SeaweedFS and Stalwart with Docker?

SeaweedFS: yes. Stalwart: yes.

Related comparisons