Cosmos vs Dokploy
| Tagline | Secure self-hosting gateway and server manager with built-in privacy features | Self-hosted PaaS to deploy apps and databases with Docker and Traefik |
| Category | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS |
| Replaces | Heroku, Render, Netlify | Heroku, Vercel, Netlify, Render |
| GitHub stars | 6.2k | 37k |
| Language | Docker | TypeScript |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose | Docker Docker Compose Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 10 days ago | 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.
Cosmos
- No Git-based or CI/CD deployment pipeline for custom code
- App marketplace is smaller and less mature than CasaOS or Umbrel
- Multi-server and horizontal scaling are not supported
- Documentation and community support are limited compared to more established platforms
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
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Dokploy for the larger community and ecosystem. Dokploy has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Cosmos
Secure self-hosting gateway and server manager with built-in privacy features