Cuttlefish vs Haraka
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted mail servers options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
| Feature | Cuttlefish | Haraka |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Under-an-hour setup | Under-an-hour setup |
| Health score | 19 · At risk | 90 · Excellent |
| Category | Mail Servers | Mail Servers |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | Ruby | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1,623 | ★ 5,617 |
| First released | 2014 | 2011 |
| Replaces | Mailgun, SendGrid, Postmark | SendGrid, Mailgun |
What are Cuttlefish and Haraka?
Cuttlefish
Cuttlefish is a self-hosted transactional email server that sends application email and tracks deliveries, opens, and clicks. It provides a dashboard for monitoring email performance.
- Transactional email delivery
- Open and click tracking
- Delivery monitoring dashboard
- SMTP relay interface
Haraka
Haraka is a fast, highly extensible SMTP server written in Node.js. Its event-driven plugin architecture makes it well suited for custom mail handling and high-volume delivery.
- Event-driven plugin system
- Very high throughput
- Inbound and outbound handling
- JavaScript plugin development
Cuttlefish vs Haraka: key differences
Cuttlefish is written in Ruby, while Haraka is built with JavaScript. Licensing differs — AGPL-3.0 for Cuttlefish versus MIT for Haraka. Haraka is the lighter option, starting around 256 MB of RAM against 1,024 MB for Cuttlefish. Haraka is the more established project (first released 2011), while Cuttlefish arrived in 2014. Haraka has the considerably larger community, at 5,617 GitHub stars versus 1,623.
Why pick each one
Choose Cuttlefish if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (1.6k GitHub stars)
- Written in Ruby
Watch out for
- Outbound mail only
- Slower development
Choose Haraka if…
- Highly customizable
- Excellent performance
Watch out for
- SMTP only, no mailbox access
- Requires coding for advanced features
Frequently asked questions
Is Cuttlefish or Haraka better?
Neither is universally better. Haraka has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Cuttlefish and Haraka free and open-source?
Yes. Cuttlefish is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and Haraka under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Cuttlefish and Haraka with Docker?
Cuttlefish: yes. Haraka: yes.
Which is lighter on resources, Cuttlefish or Haraka?
Haraka has the smaller minimum footprint at 256 MB of RAM, compared to about 1,024 MB for Cuttlefish. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.