mitmproxy vs Zoraxy
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
Zoraxy
General-purpose HTTP reverse proxy and forwarding tool
| Feature | mitmproxy | Zoraxy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Python | HTML |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, source | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 44,605 | ★ 5,370 |
| First released | 2010 | 2022 |
| Replaces | Charles Proxy, Fiddler | Nginx Proxy Manager |
Why pick each one
Choose Zoraxy if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 5.4k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is mitmproxy or Zoraxy 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 Zoraxy free and open-source?
Yes. mitmproxy is licensed under MIT and Zoraxy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run mitmproxy and Zoraxy with Docker?
mitmproxy: yes. Zoraxy: yes.