Dokploy vs OpenMediaVault
| Tagline | Self-hosted PaaS to deploy apps and databases with Docker and Traefik | Debian-based NAS OS with web UI for managing file sharing and media services |
| Category | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS |
| Replaces | Heroku, Vercel, Netlify, Render | Heroku, Render, Netlify |
| GitHub stars | 37k | 7k |
| Language | TypeScript | PHP |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 4 days ago | 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.
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.
OpenMediaVault
- NAS/storage focused; lacks any application deployment pipeline or build system
- Web UI is functional but dated compared to modern hosting dashboards
- Plugin ecosystem requires manual installation and can have compatibility issues across major versions
- Not designed for hosting arbitrary web applications; app deployment requires separate tooling
Bottom line
Choose Dokploy if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Dokploy for the larger community and ecosystem. OpenMediaVault has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
OpenMediaVault
Debian-based NAS OS with web UI for managing file sharing and media services