Coraza WAF vs Pi-hole
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?
Coraza WAF
Open-source enterprise-grade web application firewall
VS
Pi-hole
Blackhole for Internet advertisements with a GUI for management and
| Feature | Coraza WAF | Pi-hole |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | Apache-2.0 | EUPL-1.2 |
| Language | Go | Shell |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | source, binary | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,720 | ★ 60,247 |
| First released | 2021 | 2026 |
| Replaces | ModSecurity, Cloudflare WAF | — |
Why pick each one
Choose Coraza WAF if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Active community (3.7k GitHub stars)
- Written in Go
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Choose Pi-hole if…
- Released under the EUPL-1.2 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 60.2k GitHub stars
- Written in Shell
Frequently asked questions
Is Coraza WAF or Pi-hole better?
Neither is universally better. Pi-hole has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Coraza WAF and Pi-hole free and open-source?
Yes. Coraza WAF is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Pi-hole under EUPL-1.2. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Coraza WAF and Pi-hole with Docker?
Coraza WAF: check the project docs for container support. Pi-hole: yes.