Architecture comparison
Cloud drives provide file synchronization and sharing. Folderbase’s local file Core is available; its application data contract and managed sync service are in development.
Evaluating ordinary-file applications on an open local Core; field queries and managed sharing/sync are planned.
General-purpose file synchronization, backup, and human file sharing.
| Dimension | Folderbase | Cloud drives |
|---|---|---|
| Primary job | Database and collaboration layer for folders | File sync, storage, backup, and sharing |
| Identity | Durable object identity across path changes | Usually path, provider ID, or sync metadata |
| Agent model | First-class scoped agent principals and Change Sets | Agents typically use user credentials, APIs, or integrations |
| Open local engine | Apache-2.0 Core; local use needs no account | Provider-managed clients and services |
| Structure | Relationships, templates, policy, provenance, and queries | Folders, metadata, search, and provider-specific features |
Reliable synchronization moves file versions among devices. A folder database also needs to explain object identity, relationships, policy, provenance, agent authority, and how several proposed changes become one accepted version.
Folderbase Cloud is in development for durable deployed application data, shared access and explicit synchronization. Local use does not require that managed service.
Cloud drives commonly offer viewer and editor roles. Folderbase plans enforced reader/editor access for deployed workspaces, followed by explicit synchronization. The local Core’s grant model is a foundation, not proof of a deployed authorization service.
This comparison describes product boundaries using each project's own documentation. It is not a benchmark or a claim that one architecture is universally better.
Inspect the open Core and decide whether a Folderbase belongs in your agent architecture.