Contour 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?
Contour
Kubernetes ingress controller powered by Envoy
VS
mitmproxy
Interactive HTTPS proxy for inspection and debugging
| Feature | Contour | mitmproxy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | HTML | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | kubernetes, helm | docker, binary, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,944 | ★ 44,605 |
| First released | 2017 | 2010 |
| Replaces | AWS ALB Ingress | Charles Proxy, Fiddler |
Why pick each one
Choose Contour if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Active community (3.9k GitHub stars)
- Written in HTML
Frequently asked questions
Is Contour or mitmproxy better?
mitmproxy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Contour if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Contour and mitmproxy free and open-source?
Yes. Contour is licensed under Apache-2.0 and mitmproxy under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Contour and mitmproxy with Docker?
Contour: check the project docs for container support. mitmproxy: yes.