SeaweedFS vs XBackBone

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?
FeatureSeaweedFSXBackBone
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0AGPL-3.0
LanguageGoPHP
Setup difficultyHardEasy
Min. RAM512 MB50 MB
Deploymentdocker, kubernetes, binarybare-metal
GitHub stars★ 33,952★ 1,161
First released20152023
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 XBackBone if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Active community (1.2k GitHub stars)
  • Written in PHP
XBackBone details

Frequently asked questions

Is SeaweedFS or XBackBone better?

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

Are SeaweedFS and XBackBone free and open-source?

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

Can I run SeaweedFS and XBackBone with Docker?

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

Related comparisons