Caddy vs Porter
| Tagline | Automatic HTTPS web server and reverse proxy with zero config TLS | Kubernetes-native PaaS with a Heroku-like developer experience |
| Category | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS |
| Replaces | Heroku, Netlify, Render | Heroku, Render, Vercel |
| GitHub stars | 73k | 4.1k |
| Language | Go | Go |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 4/5 Involved |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 6 days ago | 9 months 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.
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
Porter
- Requires an existing Kubernetes cluster — not suitable for bare-metal without k8s experience
- Self-hosted version lacks some features available on the managed cloud
- Active development has shifted focus toward the managed offering
Bottom line
Choose Caddy if you want the lower-effort setup; 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.