SeaweedFS vs transfer.sh

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?
FeatureSeaweedFStransfer.sh
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0MIT
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyHardEasy
Min. RAM512 MB64 MB
Deploymentdocker, kubernetes, binarydocker, binary
GitHub stars★ 33,952★ 15,881
First released20152014
ReplacesAmazon S3WeTransfer

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 transfer.sh if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 15.9k GitHub stars
transfer.sh details

Frequently asked questions

Is SeaweedFS or transfer.sh better?

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

Are SeaweedFS and transfer.sh free and open-source?

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

Can I run SeaweedFS and transfer.sh with Docker?

SeaweedFS: yes. transfer.sh: yes.

Related comparisons