mitmproxy vs Squid
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
Squid
Caching and forwarding HTTP web proxy
| Feature | mitmproxy | Squid |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | MIT | GPL-2.0 |
| Language | Python | C++ |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, source | docker, binary, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 44,605 | ★ 3,050 |
| First released | 2010 | 1996 |
| Replaces | Charles Proxy, Fiddler | Cloudflare Gateway |
Why pick each one
Choose Squid if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (3k GitHub stars)
- Written in C++
Frequently asked questions
Is mitmproxy or Squid better?
mitmproxy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Squid if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are mitmproxy and Squid free and open-source?
Yes. mitmproxy is licensed under MIT and Squid under GPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run mitmproxy and Squid with Docker?
mitmproxy: yes. Squid: yes.