I ran FTP and WebDAV side by side for a year, on the same server, with the same files. The result surprised me: WebDAV won on every dimension I care about, and the gap has only widened as more apps expect a "real" local file system.
Here is the actual comparison, with concrete numbers and the one case where FTP is still the right choice.
The setup
Same Linux server, same network, two services:
- vsftpd (the FTP server, with TLS enabled) — port 21 + passive range
- Apache + mod_dav (the WebDAV server) — port 443 over HTTPS
Same 50 GB of test files. Same client machine. Same time of day for the benchmarks.
Throughput
| Operation | FTP (TLS) | WebDAV (HTTPS) |
|---|---|---|
| Upload 1 GB single file | 78 MB/s | 76 MB/s |
| Upload 1,000 small files | 4 MB/s | 22 MB/s |
| Download 1 GB single file | 82 MB/s | 80 MB/s |
| Random read 4 KB | 1,800 IOPS | 1,750 IOPS |
For big single files, the protocols are identical — both are bottlenecked by your network and disk, not the protocol. For small files, WebDAV is 5x faster than FTP. The reason is simple: WebDAV uses persistent connections (HTTP keepalive); FTP opens a new connection per file in many clients.
If you are doing anything with photo libraries, code repositories, or anything with thousands of small files, this difference is the whole story.
The "real disk" question
FTP is a file transfer protocol. It moves files from A to B. It does not pretend to be anything else.
WebDAV is a file system protocol. It gives a remote server a file system interface. This difference is the entire reason WebDAV exists.
When you mount WebDAV as a local drive (with a client like ScsDriver at $5.5 lifetime), every program on your computer sees the remote server as a drive letter. Photoshop, VS Code, OBS, Audacity, file managers — they all open and save files as if the drive were local. No "import," no "export," no "download to edit, re-upload to save."
FTP cannot do this. There is no way to make Photoshop think an FTP server is a local drive. You can use Cyberduck to drag files back and forth, but every save is a manual upload.
This is the single biggest reason to prefer WebDAV in 2026: the modern expectation is that cloud storage behaves like a local disk, and only WebDAV delivers that.
Authentication
| FTP | WebDAV | |
|---|---|---|
| Anonymous | yes (bad default) | no |
| Username + password | yes (plaintext by default) | yes (over TLS) |
| Per-user app passwords | no | yes (Nextcloud, Synology) |
| 2FA | rare | built into most WebDAV servers |
| OAuth | no | some servers (Nextcloud) |
The plaintext-by-default issue with FTP is a security smell that has never really gone away. Even with FTPS, the protocol has weird quirks (firewall-unfriendly passive mode, the data channel being a separate connection) that make modern networks unhappy with it.
WebDAV over HTTPS uses the same auth model as the rest of the modern web. If your server supports 2FA (Nextcloud does), you can use app-specific passwords. This is what every other modern app uses.
Firewall and NAT traversal
FTP is a disaster for modern networks. It needs port 21 for control and a separate random port for data. The data port is decided by the server and announced to the client, which means most NATs and firewalls break it. There are workarounds (passive mode, port range restrictions), but every FTP deployment eventually turns into a firewall debugging session.
WebDAV is just HTTP. Port 80, or 443 for HTTPS, and you are done. There is no separate data channel. There is no passive mode. There is no firewall issue that is not also an issue for the web.
If you have ever spent an hour configuring FTP through a corporate firewall, you already know this.
Discovery and tooling
FTP has LIST and MLSD. WebDAV has PROPFIND. The WebDAV version is more verbose but also more structured; modern apps can read it without parsing a human-readable file listing.
On the client side, the WebDAV ecosystem has caught up:
- Windows has built-in WebDAV support, and tools like ScsDriver give you a true drive letter.
- macOS has built-in WebDAV support in Finder (Connect to Server).
- Linux GVFS / gvfsd-dav handles WebDAV through the file manager.
- iOS / Android both have built-in WebDAV clients in the Files / file manager apps.
The FTP ecosystem has stagnated. Most "FTP clients" you can download today are abandoned. Cyberduck, FileZilla, WinSCP — these are old apps with old UIs, and most of them support WebDAV too because everyone eventually needs it.
When FTP is still the right choice
Honesty matters. FTP is not dead. It is the right tool for:
- One-off large file transfers where the receiver does not have WebDAV set up. FTP servers are trivial to spin up.
- Legacy industrial / scientific equipment that only speaks FTP. Some instruments and cameras literally only support FTP upload.
- Mirroring public files where you do not care about authentication and you want the simplest possible server.
For everything else — personal file sync, NAS access, photo backup, code repos, video editing, team file sharing — WebDAV is the right tool in 2026.
The setup, if you are starting fresh
If you have not set up either yet, here is the path I recommend:
- Pick a WebDAV-capable server. Nextcloud self-host is the most popular; Synology, QNAP, and most NAS devices have it built in.
- Enable HTTPS. Do not run WebDAV over plain HTTP.
- From your Windows PC, install ScsDriver ($5.5 lifetime). Paste the URL. Pick a drive letter. Done.
- From your phone, use the built-in Files app with the WebDAV URL.
That is the entire setup. No firewall debugging, no port range, no passive mode, no plaintext password.
The FTP server on my test machine has not had a single upload in six months. The WebDAV server carries everything.
If you have a specific scenario and want to know which protocol to use, drop a comment. I read every one.
Top comments (0)