mitmproxy 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?
FeaturemitmproxyPi-hole
CategoryReverse Proxy & GatewaysReverse Proxy & Gateways
LicenseMITEUPL-1.2
LanguagePythonShell
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM256 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binary, sourcedocker
GitHub stars★ 44,605★ 60,247
First released20102026
ReplacesCharles Proxy, Fiddler

Why pick each one

Choose mitmproxy if…

  • Powerful for debugging
  • Highly scriptable
mitmproxy details

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
Pi-hole details

Frequently asked questions

Is mitmproxy or Pi-hole better?

Neither is universally better. Pi-hole has the larger community, while mitmproxy is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are mitmproxy and Pi-hole free and open-source?

Yes. mitmproxy is licensed under MIT and Pi-hole under EUPL-1.2. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run mitmproxy and Pi-hole with Docker?

mitmproxy: yes. Pi-hole: yes.

Related comparisons