SeaweedFS vs Updog

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?
FeatureSeaweedFSUpdog
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0MIT
LanguageGoPython
Setup difficultyHardEasy
Min. RAM512 MB32 MB
Deploymentdocker, kubernetes, binarybinary
GitHub stars★ 33,952★ 3,386
First released20152019
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 Updog if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Active community (3.4k GitHub stars)
  • Written in Python
Updog details

Frequently asked questions

Is SeaweedFS or Updog better?

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

Are SeaweedFS and Updog free and open-source?

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

Can I run SeaweedFS and Updog with Docker?

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

Related comparisons