Kuma vs Pi-hole
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
Pi-hole
Blackhole for Internet advertisements with a GUI for management and
| Feature | Kuma | Pi-hole |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Reverse Proxy & Gateways | Reverse Proxy & Gateways |
| License | Apache-2.0 | EUPL-1.2 |
| Language | Go | Shell |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | kubernetes, helm, binary | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,990 | ★ 60,247 |
| First released | 2019 | 2026 |
| Replaces | Istio, Linkerd | — |
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 Pi-hole if…
- Released under the EUPL-1.2 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 60.2k GitHub stars
- Written in Shell
Frequently asked questions
Is Kuma or Pi-hole better?
Pi-hole 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 Pi-hole free and open-source?
Yes. Kuma is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Pi-hole under EUPL-1.2. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Kuma and Pi-hole with Docker?
Kuma: check the project docs for container support. Pi-hole: yes.