Dokploy vs Porter
| Tagline | Self-hosted PaaS to deploy apps and databases with Docker and Traefik | Kubernetes-native PaaS with a Heroku-like developer experience |
| Category | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS |
| Replaces | Heroku, Vercel, Netlify, Render | Heroku, Render, Vercel |
| GitHub stars | 38k | 4.1k |
| Language | TypeScript | Go |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Simple | 4/5 Involved |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 5 days ago | 1 year 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.
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.
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 Dokploy if you want the lower-effort setup; 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.