BunkerWeb vs mitmproxy
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted reverse proxy & gateways options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
BunkerWeb
Next-gen Web Application Firewall (WAF) that will protect your web
VS
mitmproxy
Interactive HTTPS proxy for inspection and debugging
| Feature | BunkerWeb | mitmproxy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | Python | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes | docker, binary, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 10,784 | ★ 44,605 |
| First released | 2026 | 2010 |
| Replaces | — | Charles Proxy, Fiddler |
Why pick each one
Choose BunkerWeb if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Mature project with 10.8k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is BunkerWeb or mitmproxy better?
mitmproxy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider BunkerWeb if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are BunkerWeb and mitmproxy free and open-source?
Yes. BunkerWeb is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and mitmproxy under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run BunkerWeb and mitmproxy with Docker?
BunkerWeb: yes. mitmproxy: yes.