FreeNAS vs. Unraid: Which Is Best for Your Storage Needs?

If you’re building a Network Attached Storage (NAS), you’ll know it’s more than just the hardware that matters. You need software to run on it as well. While you can use nearly any operating system, such as the Linux distribution of your choice, there are more specialized options.

FreeNAS and Unraid are two popular options, but it can be tough to figure out which one is best for you. There are a few factors that make it easier to choose which one to use.


FreeNAS is free, both in terms of price and in that it’s open source. The project is based on the FreeBSD operating system, and its source code is freely available on GitHub. If you’re using FreeNAS for a business, commercial support is available via TrueNAS, the project’s enterprise version.

Unraid has no free version and is closed source, owned by the company LimeTech. The software runs a proprietary operating system called Unraid OS. What you pay depends on the hardware you’re using.


The Basic version costs $59 and supports six attached storage devices, while the Plus version supports twelve storage devices for $89. Finally, the Pro version will cost you $129 and supports unlimited attached storage devices.


In the project’s own words, “file sharing is what FreeNAS does best.” If you’re looking to store large amounts of photos, music, videos, or other files, FreeNAS will do that very well. It’s possible to use the software for other things, like a Plex server, but this is secondary to the project’s overall goal.

The features reflect this. For example, FreeNAS features built-in cloud backup, with support for Amazon S3, Azure, Backblaze B2, and Google Cloud. It also features email alerts, as well as integration with services like Slack and Hipchat to notify you of system events.


Unraid is more wide-ranging. You can use it as storage, yes, but also as an application server or virtualization host. You don’t have to have a separate system for each use case either. One Unraid-powered device can function as an NAS, application server, and virtualization host.

Ease of operating is also a major focus for Unraid. For example, unlike a traditional RAID setup, you can add any drive of any size, without having to worry about matching them. This focus on flexibility means it’s very user-friendly.

Both FreeNAS and Unraid include remote graphical control panels, encryption, and built-in support for protocols like SSH, FTP, and rsync.

Hardware Requirements

FreeNAS generally has steeper hardware requirements than Unraid. First, you’ll need to be running 64-bit hardware, as 32-bit isn’t supported at all. For a small NAS, the requirements are a boot drive of at least 8 GB, and 8 GB of RAM. You’ll also need an Ethernet connection and at least one storage drive.

For a home media server, the project recommends a boot drive at least 16 GB in size and 16 GB RAM. As you add more storage, you’ll need to add more RAM. Otherwise, performance may suffer.

Like FreeNAS, Unraid requires a 64-bit CPU. Otherwise, the recommendations for a basic traditional NAS are much more lenient. For home users, 2 GB RAM is required, while 4 GB ECC RAM is recommended for business users. In addition, you’ll need an Ethernet connection and one or more storage drives.

For an application server, like a Plex or Minecraft server, the recommendations still aren’t too high. LimeTech recommends an i3 or higher CPU with at least two cores and 4 GB to 8 GB RAM.

Ease of Use

When it comes to ease of use, users often cite Unraid as being the easier of the two to use. In the case of adding a drive, you power off the server, add the new drive, turn it back on, and it will show up under Unassigned Devices. Next, run a plugin called Preclear to prepare the drive for use, then format it.


With FreeNAS, you instead have to extend the disk pool manually. This isn’t incredibly complicated if you’re familiar with the process, but it’s not quite as easy as Unraid’s method. You’re much more hands-on with FreeNAS, which some may see as a plus while others see it as a minus.


Both options offer a wealth of features, but in the end it will probably come down to ease of use and pricing. Unraid is a better choice if you’re willing to spend money in exchange for easier setup. If you’re willing to handle more of the setup yourself, FreeNAS can save you some cash. Just keep in mind that if you’re using more modest hardware, Unraid is likely to be a much better option.

Kris Wouk Kris Wouk

Kris Wouk is a writer, musician, and whatever it's called when someone makes videos for the web.


  1. A little misleading on the feature-set as FreeNAS does support Jails (a FreeBSD way to separate processes and limit resources) with several pre-built applications supported (to include Owncloud). Ref link:

    This may not be as feature rich (a large variety of applications / plugins to expand the functionality) as Unraid so you’d have to evaluate both to see which better meets your needs.

    Disclaimer: I have no involvement with either product and do not use either product. I have followed FreeNAS for several years and have recommended it to several people for both SOHO and small business use.

  2. I would be interested in seeing a comparison of either of these (or both) against OpenMediaVault. I currently use OpenMediaVault after trying FreeNAS and finding that FreeBSD does not support the network card in the machine I am using.

  3. You forgot to mention that FreeNAS has a virtualization feature as well (beehive), and somehow managed to diminish the availability of a bunch of plugins (including plex) meanwhile praising Unraid for having that same plex!
    As for higher demands on hardware – there’s a reason for that, as lower specs will lead to poor performance. I doubt Unraid is going to fly your server with 4GB ram.
    And finally variable size disks. If one of the drives in your pool dies, what happens ? FreeNAS knows how to handle it, mainly because the disks are of uniform capacity. How does Unraid handle it ?

    1. To address your question of how Unraid handles a failed drive, you simply stop the array, replace the failed drive with one of equal or greater size (HUGE benefit), and restart the array. The system will rebuild the drive with no data loss. .For a deeper understanding of the rebuild process, feel free to google it.

      1. Thanks for your reply. FreeNAS wouldn’t require you to stop the array, actually, you can do the replacement of the drive on-the-fly.

  4. The biggest issue with FreeNAS is the lack of updates and work done on FreeNAS in the last year or more. iXSystems, the company developing FreeNAS, started down a new version path the abandoned it. They started a new update, but it has been on an indefinite hiatus and questionable design directions shown on their nightly builds. Furthermore, FreeNAS is extremely finicky with new hardware. I’ve been using FreeNAS for 4+ years and stopped recommending it about a year ago as there are better alternatives.

  5. A comment about the “cost” of running these setups. I have both in production now – a FreeNAS server and an UnRaid server. They definitely overlap but are at cross-purposes. If you’re a home user, then either will “work” for you, but keep in mind that with FreeNAS, you build the array all at once with all the drives that array is ever going to have. Sure there are ways to grow the array by replacing all the disks with larger disks or by adding on additional arrays, but that first array is set. This means that the upfront cost of a freenas server can be much steeper than Unraid which allows you to grow your data pool gradually.

    In a business or performance environment, however, freenas is king. Because of the way freenas reads your data (striped across all your drives) you will get great throughput. Unraid does not stripe your data across drives. A file in unraid lives on only one of your drives, and the system puts files on your various drives depending how you setup your system, but when a file is read, it’s read from one drive. There are parity drives in unraid but the whole setup works differently. While this allows for better expansion and mixed sized drives, it hurts performance. In a many-user environment you could easily saturate the read speed of a single drive – and write speeds are much worse (though there are caching setups to help mitigate that). I’m not even going to go into the finer points of ZFS for business use cases.

    All that said, a home user with a limited starting budget would be well serviced by an unraid NAS. Someone with better technical skills and a fatter wallet might want to spend upfront to get a rock solid and better performing freenas box. Both have performed well and have been incredibly stable for me but have their niches. Or you could go my route and use a freenas box for the heavy lifting (file access, critical files, etc) and use the unraid server for backups and less often used giant media files.

Comments are closed.