BunkerWeb vs Dokploy
| Tagline | Next-generation open-source Web Application Firewall for protecting web services | Self-hosted PaaS to deploy apps and databases with Docker and Traefik |
| Category | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS |
| Replaces | Heroku, Netlify, Render | Heroku, Vercel, Netlify, Render |
| GitHub stars | 11k | 37k |
| Language | deb | TypeScript |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Docker Docker Compose Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | yesterday | 4 days ago |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
BunkerWeb
- WAF/security-focused; lacks any application deployment or build pipeline capabilities
- No global CDN or edge network; all traffic routes through self-hosted nodes
- Advanced bot management and behavioral analytics are less mature than commercial WAFs
- Multi-node clustering and high-availability configurations require significant manual setup
Dokploy
- Licensing has proprietary portions (not fully permissive for all uses), unlike a pure OSS PaaS.
- No managed edge CDN or global anycast network; you supply the infrastructure.
- Relies on Docker Swarm, which is less actively developed than Kubernetes for large-scale orchestration.
- Observability and team/RBAC features are thinner than commercial platforms.
Bottom line
Choose Dokploy if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Dokploy for the larger community and ecosystem. BunkerWeb has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
BunkerWeb
Next-generation open-source Web Application Firewall for protecting web services