ctrld 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?
ctrld
Flexible DNS forwarding proxy with per-client policy
VS
mitmproxy
Interactive HTTPS proxy for inspection and debugging
| Feature | ctrld | mitmproxy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Go | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | binary, source | docker, binary, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 866 | ★ 44,605 |
| First released | 2022 | 2010 |
| Replaces | NextDNS | Charles Proxy, Fiddler |
Why pick each one
Choose ctrld if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Written in Go
- Tiny footprint — runs in 64 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is ctrld or mitmproxy better?
mitmproxy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider ctrld if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are ctrld and mitmproxy free and open-source?
Yes. ctrld is licensed under MIT and mitmproxy under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run ctrld and mitmproxy with Docker?
ctrld: check the project docs for container support. mitmproxy: yes.