Comparison

Cotton vs Hoodik: E2E where you want it plus rich UX versus E2E everything, but spartan.

Hoodik is a small Rust project built around end-to-end encryption for everything by default. Cotton encrypts every chunk by default, adds client-side E2E on the folders you choose, and keeps a full file-cloud UX everywhere else. This is not a scoreboard with fake certainty; it is a product-fit comparison for self-hosted file cloud decisions.

Hoodik alternativeSelf-hosted file cloudStorage engineDocker deployment

E2E everywhere versus E2E exactly where it matters

Hoodik encrypts everything end-to-end with no server-side plaintext - that is its whole identity, and it is a clean, principled guarantee. Cotton's default is streaming AES-GCM per chunk with client-side E2E on the folders you choose. This is not Cotton being more private; an all-E2E product gives the server strictly less. It is a different trade: E2E where it matters, plus a server that can render previews and serve WebDAV on the folders you leave it.

A locker, not a viewer

Hoodik's documented surface is encrypt, store, search, and notes - no in-browser previews are listed. Cotton renders audio waveforms, 3D models, HEIC, mobile PDF text, and seekable video. If your day is open-scrub-preview-peek, Cotton is a file cloud; Hoodik is closer to an encrypted locker - by design, since previews require touching content that whole-disk E2E forbids. And if you only need to encrypt a file and stash it, age or GPG do that locally without running a server at all.

Recovery and reach

Cotton exposes WebDAV through its chunk pipeline and ships snapshots, versions, and database auto-restore. Hoodik has no documented WebDAV or desktop sync, and warns that your private key is the only recovery path - forget the passphrase and the data is gone, with no file version history to fall back on.

Total privacy, or privacy plus product

Pick Hoodik when uniform, no-exceptions confidentiality is the entire point and a minimal footprint is a feature. Pick Cotton when you want E2E for what matters and a finished file-cloud experience for everything else. Note Hoodik's CC BY-NC license - non-commercial use only - when planning a business deployment.

Decision matrix

Where the tradeoff actually sits.

Cotton does not need to beat every long-established ecosystem on every surface. The useful comparison is narrower: storage behavior, privacy posture, recovery model, deployment shape, and product focus.

Area

Cotton

Hoodik

Encryption scope

AES-GCM everywhere plus E2E on the folders you choose.

End-to-end on everything by default - a clean, total guarantee.

Previews

Waveform, 3D, HEIC, mobile PDF, seekable video.

No in-browser previews listed - encrypt, store, search, notes.

Reach and recovery

WebDAV, snapshots, versions, and DB auto-restore.

No WebDAV or sync client; the key is the only recovery path.

License

A finished file-cloud product surface.

CC BY-NC - non-commercial use only.

Content addressing

Cotton stores file content as chunks and manifests, so deduplication, verification, versions, snapshots, and cleanup share one mental model.

Streaming safety path

Compression and AES-GCM encryption sit in the normal storage path; the site does not sell isolated crypto speed as user-visible ingest speed.

Recovery by references

Snapshots, versions, trash, and reclaim are positioned as ordinary file-cloud workflows, not emergency-only backend chores.

Focused runtime

Cotton deliberately stays narrower than broad collaboration suites: files, previews, sharing, WebDAV, recovery, and operator visibility.

Cotton lane

Pick Cotton for a storage-first file cloud.

Cotton is the cleaner story when files, previews, shares, snapshots, versions, WebDAV, passkeys, admin diagnostics, and a compact Docker/Postgres deployment are the main problem.

Hoodik lane

Pick Hoodik when its broader lane is the point.

Users whose single hard requirement is that the server can never read any of their data.

Choose Cotton when

You want a focused self-hosted file cloud with content-addressed storage, streaming crypto, snapshots, previews, WebDAV, sharing, passkeys, and a compact Docker deployment.

Choose Hoodik when

You need uniform end-to-end encryption by default, where the server never sees any plaintext more than the Cotton storage-engine and recovery-model strengths.

Positioning

Cotton is not trying to be a bigger suite than Hoodik. It is trying to be the sharper file cloud when the file engine itself is the product decision.

Still choose carefully

If you want E2E where it matters plus rich previews, WebDAV, and recovery, Cotton is the fuller product.

Storage model Benchmarks Security

Last reviewed June 2026. Every line below links to its receipt - the actual issue, doc, or commit it came from. Competitors move fast; if a link goes stale, open an issue and we fix it.

Receipts

FAQ

Direct answers

Is Cotton a drop-in replacement for Hoodik?

Not always. Cotton is a focused file cloud, not a clone of every app and integration in the older ecosystems. It fits best when file storage, previews, sharing, snapshots, WebDAV, security, and deployment simplicity are the main problem.

Why compare Cotton to established products?

Because people searching for a self-hosted file cloud often start with the familiar names. The comparison makes the tradeoff explicit instead of pretending every product has the same goal.

When should I still choose Hoodik?

If your single hard requirement is that the server can never read any of your data, Hoodik's all-E2E-by-default model is a cleaner guarantee than E2E on selected folders. Cotton trades that for E2E where it matters plus a full file-cloud UX everywhere else.