Learn how Peergos and Seafile differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these cloud file sync & share tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
License
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
Self-hosted
Repository

Both Peergos and Seafile have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Seafile significantly outpaces Peergos in community adoption with 15,284 stars compared to 2,530 stars on GitHub. This 6.0x difference suggests Seafile has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Seafile has 1,677 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Peergos is growing faster, adding 77 stars in the last 30 days (+3.1%) against adding 101 stars for Seafile (+0.7%). Peergos is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Peergos last updated 18 hours ago and Seafile 11 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with Bash. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Peergos uses Java while Seafile leverages Python, C, Objective-C, C++.
Seafile has been in development longer, starting 14 years ago, compared to Peergos which began 13 years ago. This 1.1-year head start suggests Seafile may have more mature features and established processes.
Peergos is licensed under AGPL-3.0, while Seafile's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Cloud File Sync & Share. However, they also have distinct specializations: Peergos also focuses on Encrypted Storage while Seafile extends into Document Management Systems, Secure Document Sharing.
Seafile provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Peergos may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs