Cuttlefish vs mailcow
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted mail servers options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Cuttlefish
Transactional email server with click and open tracking
VS
mailcow
Dockerized full-stack mail server suite
| Feature | Cuttlefish | mailcow |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Mail Servers | Mail Servers |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Ruby | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 6,144 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal, source | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1,624 | ★ 13,245 |
| First released | 2014 | 2016 |
| Replaces | Mailgun, SendGrid, Postmark | Microsoft Exchange, Google Workspace |
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
Frequently asked questions
Is Cuttlefish or mailcow better?
Neither is universally better. mailcow has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Cuttlefish and mailcow free and open-source?
Yes. Cuttlefish is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and mailcow under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Cuttlefish and mailcow with Docker?
Cuttlefish: yes. mailcow: yes.