mitmproxy vs Varnish Cache
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
Varnish Cache
High-performance HTTP accelerator and caching proxy
| Feature | mitmproxy | Varnish Cache |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | MIT | BSD-2-Clause |
| Language | Python | C |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, source | docker, binary, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 44,605 | ★ 4,050 |
| First released | 2010 | 2006 |
| Replaces | Charles Proxy, Fiddler | Cloudflare, Squid |
Why pick each one
Choose Varnish Cache if…
- Released under the BSD-2-Clause license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (4k GitHub stars)
- Written in C
Frequently asked questions
Is mitmproxy or Varnish Cache better?
mitmproxy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Varnish Cache if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are mitmproxy and Varnish Cache free and open-source?
Yes. mitmproxy is licensed under MIT and Varnish Cache under BSD-2-Clause. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run mitmproxy and Varnish Cache with Docker?
mitmproxy: yes. Varnish Cache: yes.