Learn how Seafile and Twake Drive 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
5 days agoRepository age
14 yearsVersion
v9.0.5Self-hosted
YesRepository
haiwen/seafile
Last 30 days
Last commit
4 hours agoRepository age
10 yearsVersion
1.108.0License
AGPL-3.0Repository
linagora/twake-drive
Seafile appears to have several advantages over Twake Drive, particularly in popularity, maturity and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Seafile significantly outpaces Twake Drive in community adoption with 15,463 stars compared to 997 stars on GitHub. This 15.5x difference suggests Seafile has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Seafile has 1,680 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Seafile and Twake Drive are moving at much the same rate, adding 125 stars and adding 9 stars respectively over the last 30 days (+0.8% vs +0.9%). Neither is pulling away from the other on momentum alone.
Both projects show recent activity, with Seafile last updated 5 days ago and Twake Drive 4 hours ago.
Seafile uses Bash, Python, C, Objective-C, C++ while Twake Drive leverages JavaScript, Typescript, JSX.
Seafile has been in development longer, starting 14 years ago, compared to Twake Drive which began 10 years ago. This 4.5-year head start suggests Seafile may have more mature features and established processes.
Twake Drive 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: Seafile also focuses on Document Management Systems, Secure Document Sharing.
Seafile provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Twake Drive 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