Caddy vs Pangolin
| Tagline | Automatic HTTPS web server and reverse proxy with zero config TLS | Identity-aware tunneled reverse proxy with WireGuard and access control |
| Category | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS |
| Replaces | Heroku, Netlify, Render | Heroku, Netlify, Render |
| GitHub stars | 73k | 21k |
| Language | Go | Docker |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Docker Docker Compose |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | today | yesterday |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Caddy
- Not a full PaaS; no git push deploy, build pipelines, or app lifecycle management
- No built-in CI/CD integration; needs to be combined with other tools for deployments
- Dashboard and metrics require third-party tools (Prometheus, Grafana) — none built-in
- No managed database provisioning or environment variable secrets management
Pangolin
- Requires a publicly accessible VPS to act as the tunnel endpoint, adding infrastructure overhead
- No managed global edge network; latency depends on your VPS location
- Ecosystem and third-party integrations are much smaller than Cloudflare Tunnel or Tailscale
- Mobile client support and device management are limited compared to Tailscale
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Caddy for the larger community and ecosystem. Caddy has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.