SHSelfHostIndex

mitmproxy vs UUSEC WAF

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?
MI mitmproxy Interactive HTTPS proxy for inspection and debugging VS UU UUSEC WAF Industry-leading high-performance, AI and semantic technology web
FeaturemitmproxyUUSEC WAF
CategoryReverse Proxy & GatewaysReverse Proxy & Gateways
LicenseMITGPL-3.0
LanguagePythonShell
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM256 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binary, sourcedocker
GitHub stars★ 44,605★ 1,699
First released20102026
ReplacesCharles Proxy, Fiddler—

Why pick each one

Choose mitmproxy if…

  • Powerful for debugging
  • Highly scriptable
mitmproxy details

Choose UUSEC WAF if…

  • Released under the GPL-3.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Active community (1.7k GitHub stars)
  • Written in Shell
UUSEC WAF details

Frequently asked questions

Is mitmproxy or UUSEC WAF better?

mitmproxy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider UUSEC WAF if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

Are mitmproxy and UUSEC WAF free and open-source?

Yes. mitmproxy is licensed under MIT and UUSEC WAF under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run mitmproxy and UUSEC WAF with Docker?

mitmproxy: yes. UUSEC WAF: yes.

Related comparisons