head to head · open source

rocksdb vs juicefs

rocksdb has 32,114 GitHub stars, 6,933 forks, 1,645 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. juicefs has 14,440 stars, 1,290 forks, 203 open issues and last shipped today. rocksdb leads on adoption by 122% (32,114 vs 14,440 stars). rocksdb is written in C++ under GPL-2.0; juicefs is written in Go under Apache-2.0. rocksdb has attracted 22% as many forks as stars, juicefs 9%. juicefs was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

rocksdb ★ 32K juicefs ★ 14K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

rocksdb juicefs
GitHub stars ★ 32K ★ 14K
License GPL-2.0 Apache-2.0
Written in C++ Go
Last push 2026-09-18 2026-09-20
Forks ⑂ 6.9K ⑂ 1.3K
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick rocksdb if

  • You weight community size — 32K stars and counting
  • You want the GPL-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches C++
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full rocksdb profile →

pick juicefs if

  • You want the juicefs feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the Apache-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You evaluated both and juicefs fits your workflow better

full juicefs profile →

About rocksdb

RocksDB is an embeddable, persistent key value store written in C++ and developed by the Facebook Database Engineering Team. It is a library rather than a standalone server, and it forms the core building block for a fast key value server. The project builds on earlier work on LevelDB by Sanjay Ghemawat and Jeff Dean, and it lives in the systems infrastructure and database ecosystem, carrying the topics database and storage engine. It has been public for roughly fourteen years and is dual licensed under GPLv2 and Apache 2.0, so a user may select either license at their option.

read the full rocksdb overview →

About juicefs

JuiceFS is a Go based, Apache 2.0 distributed POSIX file system that stores file data in object storage and metadata in a database engine such as Redis, MySQL, SQLite, or TiKV, and it is aimed at cloud native infrastructure, big data, machine learning, and AI workloads.

read the full juicefs overview →

More in Infrastructure & Operations

kubernetes ★ 128K Immich ★ 115K frp ★ 110K Uptime Kuma ★ 92K worldmonitor ★ 87K mall ★ 85K

Related comparisons

supabase vs nocodb mall vs prometheus mall vs nocodb supabase vs postgrest mall vs etcd mall vs dbeaver mall vs orm prometheus vs nocodb n8n vs huginn uptime-kuma vs worldmonitor uptime-kuma vs netdata uptime-kuma vs grafana worldmonitor vs netdata worldmonitor vs grafana uptime-kuma vs prometheus netdata vs grafana n8n vs kestra langchain vs haystack kubernetes vs rancher ansible vs compose ansible vs conductor ansible vs xxl-job ansible vs gitleaks ansible vs kestra

More Databases projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Databases field.

rocksdb vs mall rocksdb vs Prometheus rocksdb vs NocoDB rocksdb vs etcd rocksdb vs DBeaver rocksdb vs orm rocksdb vs Milvus rocksdb vs TiDB rocksdb vs drawDB rocksdb vs typeorm rocksdb vs AnotherRedisDesktopManager rocksdb vs Qdrant

Frequently asked questions

Is rocksdb or juicefs more popular?

rocksdb has 32,114 GitHub stars and juicefs has 14,440. rocksdb has the larger community by that measure.

Are rocksdb and juicefs free?

Both are open source. rocksdb is licensed under GPL-2.0 and juicefs under Apache-2.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between rocksdb and juicefs?

rocksdb is written in C++ and juicefs in Go. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, rocksdb or juicefs?

Choose rocksdb if you want the larger community (32,114 stars) or its GPL-2.0 licence terms. Choose juicefs if its feature set, stack or Apache-2.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.