Kuma vs NPS
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?
Kuma
Universal service mesh for Kubernetes and VMs
VS
NPS
Lightweight proxy server for intranet penetration
| Feature | Kuma | NPS |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | kubernetes, helm, binary | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,990 | ★ 34,157 |
| First released | 2019 | 2019 |
| Replaces | Istio, Linkerd | ngrok |
Why pick each one
Choose Kuma if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Active community (4k GitHub stars)
- Written in Go
Choose NPS if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 34.2k GitHub stars
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is Kuma or NPS better?
NPS is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler medium setup. Consider Kuma if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Kuma and NPS free and open-source?
Yes. Kuma is licensed under Apache-2.0 and NPS under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kuma and NPS with Docker?
Kuma: check the project docs for container support. NPS: yes.