SeaweedFS vs Sync-in

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?
FeatureSeaweedFSSync-in
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0AGPL-3.0-or-later
LanguageGoTypeScript
Setup difficultyHardMedium
Min. RAM512 MB1,024 MB
Deploymentdocker, kubernetes, binarybare-metal
GitHub stars★ 33,952★ 1,630
First released20152025
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 Sync-in if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0-or-later license
  • Active community (1.6k GitHub stars)
  • Written in TypeScript
Sync-in details

Frequently asked questions

Is SeaweedFS or Sync-in better?

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

Are SeaweedFS and Sync-in free and open-source?

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

Can I run SeaweedFS and Sync-in with Docker?

SeaweedFS: yes. Sync-in: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons