Pangolin vs Traefik
| Tagline | Identity-aware tunneled reverse proxy with WireGuard and access control | Cloud-native HTTP reverse proxy and load balancer for microservices |
| Category | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS | Self-Hosting Platforms & PaaS |
| Replaces | Heroku, Netlify, Render | Heroku, Vercel, Render |
| GitHub stars | 21k | 64k |
| Language | Docker | Go |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | yesterday | today |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Pangolin
- Requires a publicly accessible VPS to act as the tunnel endpoint, adding infrastructure overhead
- No managed global edge network; latency depends on your VPS location
- Ecosystem and third-party integrations are much smaller than Cloudflare Tunnel or Tailscale
- Mobile client support and device management are limited compared to Tailscale
Traefik
- Ingress/routing layer only; does not provide git-based deployments, build systems, or app management
- Configuration via labels and providers has a steep learning curve compared to Heroku's zero-config UX
- No built-in secrets management or environment variable injection for deployed apps
- Enterprise features (clustering, advanced WAF, SSO) require the commercial Traefik Enterprise edition
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Traefik for the larger community and ecosystem. Traefik has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.