Harbor vs Zenko CloudServer
Both are self-hosted file transfer - object storage & file servers projects. This page compares how well each one is actually maintained — the part you cannot see from a feature list.
| Harbor | Zenko CloudServer | |
|---|---|---|
| Health score | 80/100 | 76/100 |
| Commits (11 mo) | 318 | 734 |
| Commits (last 3 mo) | 143 | 198 |
| Stars | 29k | 2k |
| Latest release | 24 Sept 2026 | 25 Sept 2026 |
| Licence | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Built with | Docker, K8S | Docker, Nodejs |
| Typical RAM | 2 GB | 1 GB |
Harbor
Cloud native image registry that stores, signs, and scans content.
Actively maintained with regular releases.
Commit activity more than 54% of tracked projects; popularity more than 92%. How this is calculated.
Commits, last 11 months
Zenko CloudServer
Implementation of the Amazon S3 protocol on the front-end and backend storage capabilities to multiple clouds, including Azure and Google.
Actively maintained with regular releases.
Commit activity more than 74% of tracked projects; popularity more than 48%. How this is calculated.
Commits, last 11 months
How to read this
Everything above is measured, not opinion: commit counts and release dates come from the public repositories, and the health score ranks each project against all 1352 projects we track. Read the full method.
What this comparison deliberately does not do is tell you which has the better feature set. Maintenance health tells you which project will still be receiving security fixes in two years. Decide that first, then compare features on the projects that survive the filter.
See every option in this category: self-hosted file transfer - object storage & file servers.