CoreDNS 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?
CoreDNS
Flexible, plugin-based DNS server
VS
mitmproxy
Interactive HTTPS proxy for inspection and debugging
| Feature | CoreDNS | mitmproxy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Go | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | binary, docker, kubernetes | docker, binary, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 14,229 | ★ 44,605 |
| First released | 2016 | 2010 |
| Replaces | BIND, dnsmasq | Charles Proxy, Fiddler |
Why pick each one
Choose CoreDNS if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Mature project with 14.2k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is CoreDNS or mitmproxy better?
mitmproxy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider CoreDNS if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are CoreDNS and mitmproxy free and open-source?
Yes. CoreDNS is licensed under Apache-2.0 and mitmproxy under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run CoreDNS and mitmproxy with Docker?
CoreDNS: yes. mitmproxy: yes.