Twelve file clouds, compared by the jobs you actually do. Where Cotton wins, where it does not, and which competitor matches your actual problem.
Every row is a thing you will actually do with a file cloud: upload large files, preview media, share a link, restore a folder. Skip the rows that do not match your workflow. The bottom line is honest: Cotton is built to lead on the file-UX rows in this table, but the file-cloud category is not the only category.
Browser file UX is the whole point. Sustained upload speed, encrypted video seek, audio waveform with cover art, STL viewer, mobile PDF text layer, instant rollback, WebDAV that does not choke. These are the rows where most competitors leave value on the table.
If you need Collabora or OnlyOffice document editing, federation between instances, calendar/contact/chat groupware, a 200-plugin marketplace, or formal enterprise governance workflows, Cotton is not the answer. Use Cotton if files are the main job, not the side of a suite.
So the table is honest both ways: client-side E2E is capped at 512 MB per file today (browser Blob pipeline); and the benchmarks are machine-mode baselines, not live upload math. The storage crypto is by-the-book AES-GCM, without a third-party audit yet.
The table is not a universal scoreboard. It says Cotton wins the focused file-workflow rows listed here. Some competitors win on adjacent rows. Pick the one that matches your actual problem, not the loudest brand.
Each row is a real thing you do with a file cloud, grouped by job. Cotton is ahead on the file-UX rows. The last group is honest gaps: if Office collaboration, federation, groupware, or enterprise governance matter most, pick a different product.
| What you actually do | Cotton | Nextcloud | Seafile | oCIS | Pydio | FileCloud | Hoodik |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance & storage | |||||||
| Sustained upload speed | 120-150 MB/s for hours | Can stall during finalization | Good, stable | Mid-good | Mid | Enterprise large-file support | Low (JS crypto) |
| Encrypted at full speed | In main pipeline | Opt-in, lossy history | Library-level, all/nothing | Via Reva | KeyVault | At-rest AES, compliance lane | Always, but slow |
| Dedup visible to user | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No storage-engine dedup claim | No (E2E blocks) |
| WebDAV speed | Native chunked pipeline | Often slow | Mid | Good | Mid | Drive/sync clients are the lane | Not supported |
| Realtime sync | Yes (SignalR) | Notify Push plugin | No | Partial | No | Sync clients, not browser realtime | No |
| Previews & viewers | |||||||
| Video seek on encrypted | Yes | No (decrypts to temp) | Limited | No | No | Not documented as seekable chunks | Client-side only |
| Audio waveform + cover | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| HEIC preview | Yes | Via plugin | Pro only | No | No | Not listed | No |
| STL 3D viewer | Yes | No | No | No | No | CAD/DICOM, not STL-focused | No |
| SVG as a real viewer | Yes | Basic | Basic | No | No | Basic/enterprise preview lane | No |
| Code syntax highlighting | Yes | Via Text plugin | Yes | No | Basic | Not the feature lane | No |
| Mobile & sharing | |||||||
| PDF text layer (mobile) | Yes | No | No | No | No | Mobile apps, not this UX claim | No |
| Web Share API | Yes | No | No | No | No | No public Web Share claim | No |
| Free folder structure | Yes | Yes | Libraries required | Partial (Spaces) | Workspaces | My Files, team folders, shares | Yes |
| Snapshots & backup | |||||||
| Tree snapshots / rollback | Yes | Per-file copies | Yes (git-like) | Via backend | Copies | Versions, retention, ransomware tools | No |
| Auto-restore DB | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Adjacent platform features | |||||||
| Office collaboration | No | Yes | Yes (SeaDoc) | Yes | No | Yes (Office integrations) | No |
| Calendar / Contacts / Chat | No | Yes (Hub) | No | Partial | No | No | No |
| Federation between instances | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Site replication, not federation | No |
| Native mobile apps | Yes (Android) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Each row is from public documentation, observed product behaviour or first-hand testing. Disagree with a row? Open an issue on GitHub — the table updates when the facts do.
Last reviewed June 2026. Per-claim source links live on each head-to-head /vs page.
Seven honest verdicts, including Cotton. If a competitor is the right call for your job, the verdict says so.
Different category, not a worse one. Nextcloud is a personal cloud platform with calendar, contacts, chat, Office, federation, 200+ apps. Cotton is a focused file cloud for large libraries, previews, sharing, recovery, and storage mechanics. Pick Nextcloud if you live inside the suite. Pick Cotton if files are the main job.
Deep comparisonThe closest competitor on pure file mechanics: dedup, encrypted libraries, solid sync. Loses on browser polish (libraries as a forced step, weaker previews, no audio waveform, no STL, no realtime, no auto-restore) and on WebDAV speed. Pick Seafile if you want old-guard sync clients above all. Pick Cotton if browser file UX matters.
Deep comparisonBetter than classic Nextcloud architecturally (Go, not PHP). But weaker UX: basic previews, no dedup, no encrypted video seek, Spaces as a middle abstraction. Pick oCIS for enterprise scenarios with mandatory external IdP and multi-tenant. Pick Cotton for personal/team file UX.
Deep comparisonEnterprise-ish. No dedup, no video seek, basic previews, mandatory workspaces. Strong on access control. Pick Pydio for B2B file management with org-level permissions. Pick Cotton for a personal/team file cloud.
Enterprise EFSS, not a hobby self-hosted cloud: Server or Online, AD/LDAP, NTFS/network shares, DLP, DRM, compliance templates, endpoint backup, and mature desktop/mobile clients. Pick FileCloud for procurement-heavy business file governance. Pick Cotton when the file engine and browser UX are the decision.
Deep comparisonCovers one thing Cotton makes optional: always-on E2E for everything. Everything else is sparse - no WebDAV, no realtime, basic previews, no proper video seek, no sharing with previews, no dedup. Pick Hoodik for paranoid mode. Pick Cotton if you want a broad file cloud with E2E as an option per folder.
Best fit in this table when file UX is the job: sustained uploads, previews, encrypted video seek, rollback, WebDAV, native Android plus Windows/Linux sync clients, and recovery. Weaker on Office collaboration, federation, calendar/contact/chat suite breadth, and enterprise governance. If files are the product and you want the browser surface to feel current, Cotton is the call.
Nextcloud, Seafile, ownCloud/oCIS, OpenCloud, Pydio Cells, and FileCloud cover the familiar self-hosted and enterprise lanes. Cloudreve, MinIO, Filebrowser, and Pingvin Share take adjacent approaches: a storage aggregator, object storage, a thin folder browser, and a share tool. Hoodik is the closest always-on E2E option, and Immich is the reference photo cloud. A different product category entirely (ProtonDrive, Bitwarden, Vaultwarden) is out of scope.
Cotton wins the rows it wins, and the table calls out the rows where it does not (Office collaboration, federation, app-suite breadth). If a row is honest about a Cotton gap, that is the row staying honest.
Yes. The live demo is the real product with per-browser credentials. Five minutes of clicking around answers more than any comparison page.