mitmproxy vs Pound
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
Pound
Lightweight reverse proxy and HTTPS load balancer
| Feature | mitmproxy | Pound |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Python | C |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 32 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, source | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 44,605 | ★ 70 |
| First released | 2010 | 2002 |
| Replaces | Charles Proxy, Fiddler | NGINX, HAProxy |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is mitmproxy or Pound better?
Neither is universally better. mitmproxy has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are mitmproxy and Pound free and open-source?
Yes. mitmproxy is licensed under MIT and Pound under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run mitmproxy and Pound with Docker?
mitmproxy: yes. Pound: check the project docs for container support.