mitmproxy vs Static Web Server
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
Static Web Server
Cross-platform, high-performance, and asynchronous web server for
| Feature | mitmproxy | Static Web Server |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Python | Rust |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, source | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 44,605 | ★ 2,312 |
| First released | 2010 | 2026 |
| Replaces | Charles Proxy, Fiddler | — |
Why pick each one
Choose Static Web Server if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (2.3k GitHub stars)
- Written in Rust
Frequently asked questions
Is mitmproxy or Static Web Server better?
mitmproxy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Static Web Server if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are mitmproxy and Static Web Server free and open-source?
Yes. mitmproxy is licensed under MIT and Static Web Server under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run mitmproxy and Static Web Server with Docker?
mitmproxy: yes. Static Web Server: yes.