SeaweedFS vs Zipline

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?
FeatureSeaweedFSZipline
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0MIT
LanguageGoTypeScript
Setup difficultyHardMedium
Min. RAM512 MB256 MB
Deploymentdocker, kubernetes, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 33,952★ 3,313
First released20152021
ReplacesAmazon S3Imgur, Dropbox

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 Zipline if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Active community (3.3k GitHub stars)
  • Written in TypeScript
Zipline details

Frequently asked questions

Is SeaweedFS or Zipline better?

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

Are SeaweedFS and Zipline free and open-source?

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

Can I run SeaweedFS and Zipline with Docker?

SeaweedFS: yes. Zipline: yes.

Related comparisons