mitmproxy vs Emissary-ingress
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?
mitmproxy
Interactive HTTPS proxy for inspection and debugging
VS
Emissary-ingress
Kubernetes-native API gateway built on Envoy
| Feature | mitmproxy | Emissary-ingress |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Python | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, source | kubernetes, helm |
| GitHub stars | ★ 44,605 | ★ 4,518 |
| First released | 2010 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Charles Proxy, Fiddler | AWS API Gateway, Kong |
Why pick each one
Choose Emissary-ingress if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Active community (4.5k GitHub stars)
- Written in Python
Frequently asked questions
Is mitmproxy or Emissary-ingress better?
mitmproxy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Emissary-ingress if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are mitmproxy and Emissary-ingress free and open-source?
Yes. mitmproxy is licensed under MIT and Emissary-ingress under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run mitmproxy and Emissary-ingress with Docker?
mitmproxy: yes. Emissary-ingress: check the project docs for container support.