Caddy vs UUSEC WAF
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?
Caddy
Fast, multi-platform web server with automatic HTTPS
VS
UUSEC WAF
Industry-leading high-performance, AI and semantic technology web
| Feature | Caddy | UUSEC WAF |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | Shell |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, bare-metal | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 74,748 | ★ 1,699 |
| First released | 2015 | 2026 |
| Replaces | Nginx, Apache | — |
Why pick each one
Choose UUSEC WAF if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (1.7k GitHub stars)
- Written in Shell
Frequently asked questions
Is Caddy or UUSEC WAF better?
Caddy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider UUSEC WAF if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Caddy and UUSEC WAF free and open-source?
Yes. Caddy is licensed under Apache-2.0 and UUSEC WAF under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Caddy and UUSEC WAF with Docker?
Caddy: yes. UUSEC WAF: yes.