Caddy vs Zoraxy
| Tagline | Automatic HTTPS web server and reverse proxy with zero config TLS | General-purpose HTTP reverse proxy and forwarding tool with web UI |
| Category | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS |
| Replaces | Heroku, Netlify, Render | Heroku, Netlify, Render |
| GitHub stars | 73k | 5.3k |
| Language | Go | Go |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Docker Manual |
| 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
Zoraxy
- No application deployment or build pipeline capabilities
- Advanced load balancing algorithms (least-connections, consistent hashing) are absent
- Plugin and extensibility ecosystem is minimal compared to NGINX or Caddy
- High-availability and clustering configurations are not officially supported
Bottom line
Choose Zoraxy 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.