Zoraxy vs Caddy: Which Proxy to Self-Host?
Quick Verdict
Caddy is the better reverse proxy — lighter, faster, more battle-tested, and its Caddyfile is nearly as simple as a web UI. Choose Zoraxy if you specifically want a GUI for proxy management plus built-in uptime monitoring and GeoIP filtering without running additional tools.
Overview
Caddy and Zoraxy both provide automatic HTTPS, but they take different approaches. Caddy uses a two-line config file per service. Zoraxy provides a web interface where you click to add proxy rules. Both handle Let’s Encrypt certificates automatically.
Caddy (v2.10.2) is a modern web server and reverse proxy written in Go. Its Caddyfile format is the simplest config language of any proxy. Automatic HTTPS, HTTP/3, and static file serving are built in.
Zoraxy (v3.3.1) is a Go-based reverse proxy with a web management UI. It bundles HTTP/HTTPS proxying, TCP/UDP stream proxying, uptime monitoring, GeoIP filtering, a web SSH terminal, and Docker container discovery.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Zoraxy | Caddy |
|---|---|---|
| Automatic HTTPS | Yes (Let’s Encrypt) | Yes (Let’s Encrypt, ZeroSSL) |
| Web UI | Yes (full management) | No |
| HTTP/2 | Yes | Yes |
| HTTP/3 (QUIC) | No | Yes |
| Static file serving | Basic (web file manager) | Yes (native, fast) |
| TCP/UDP stream proxying | Yes (web UI) | Via plugin |
| Docker container discovery | Yes (via socket) | Via plugin (caddy-docker-proxy) |
| GeoIP filtering | Yes (built-in) | No |
| Uptime monitoring | Yes (built-in) | No |
| Web SSH terminal | Yes | No |
| Rate limiting | No | Via plugin |
| Caching | No | Via plugin |
| Plugin system | Yes | Yes (Go modules) |
| ZeroTier VPN | Yes (built-in) | No |
| API | Limited | Full REST API |
| Wildcard certs | Yes (DNS challenge) | Yes (DNS challenge) |
| On-demand TLS | No | Yes |
| Config format | Web UI | Caddyfile (text) |
| Config versioning | No (GUI state) | Yes (text file in git) |
| Idle RAM | 100-150 MB | 20-40 MB |
Installation Complexity
Caddy: One container, one Caddyfile, two volumes. Adding a service:
app.example.com {
reverse_proxy app:8080
}Two lines. Reload. Done.
Zoraxy: One container, three ports, two volumes, optional Docker socket. Adding a service: open web UI, click “Add Rule,” fill in domain and upstream, toggle HTTPS, save. About 30 seconds of clicking.
Winner: Tie. Both are extremely easy. Caddy is faster for people comfortable with text files. Zoraxy is faster for people who prefer GUIs.
Performance and Resource Usage
| Metric | Zoraxy | Caddy |
|---|---|---|
| Idle RAM | 100-150 MB | 20-40 MB |
| With FastGeoIP | 1-1.2 GB | N/A |
| Image size | ~78 MB | ~45 MB |
| Written in | Go | Go |
| HTTP/3 | No | Yes |
Caddy uses 3-5x less RAM at idle. It is also the only one of the two with HTTP/3 support. For a resource-constrained server (Raspberry Pi, small VPS), Caddy is the clear winner.
Winner: Caddy for performance and resource efficiency.
Community and Support
| Metric | Zoraxy | Caddy |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | ~5K | ~61K |
| First release | 2022 | 2015 |
| Backed by | Individual developer | Individual + sponsors |
| Documentation | Wiki + README | Excellent docs site |
| Community guides | Few | Extensive |
Caddy’s 61K stars and 10+ years of maturity dwarf Zoraxy’s 5K stars and 4 years of existence. Caddy’s documentation is among the best of any open-source project.
Winner: Caddy by a wide margin.
Use Cases
Choose Zoraxy If…
- You strongly prefer a web UI over editing config files
- Built-in uptime monitoring replaces a separate Uptime Kuma instance
- GeoIP filtering is a requirement
- You want TCP/UDP stream proxying through a visual interface
- Web SSH access through the proxy UI is valuable
- You want Docker container auto-discovery with GUI management
Choose Caddy If…
- You want the lightest, simplest reverse proxy
- Config-as-code in a versioned text file matters
- HTTP/3 support is important
- You want the largest community and best documentation
- Static file serving alongside proxying is needed
- You prefer minimal resource usage
- On-demand TLS (certificate provisioned at first request) is needed
Final Verdict
Caddy wins for most self-hosters. Its Caddyfile is so simple that the lack of a web UI is barely noticeable. Two lines per service, automatic HTTPS, 20 MB of RAM. It is the best reverse proxy for homelabs.
Zoraxy wins on bundled features. If you want a single tool that replaces your reverse proxy, uptime monitor, and GeoIP filter, Zoraxy consolidates three tools into one. That consolidation has value for people who want fewer moving parts.
Our recommendation: start with Caddy. If you later decide you want a GUI or built-in monitoring, try Zoraxy or Nginx Proxy Manager.
FAQ
Is Zoraxy’s web UI worth the extra RAM?
For most setups, no. Caddy’s Caddyfile achieves the same result with 3-5x less memory. But if you manage proxy rules frequently and dislike editing text files, the GUI saves time.
Can I use Caddy plugins to match Zoraxy’s features?
Partially. caddy-docker-proxy adds Docker auto-discovery. There are community plugins for GeoIP. But there is no Caddy plugin for integrated uptime monitoring or web SSH.
Which handles Let’s Encrypt better?
Both handle it well. Caddy is slightly more mature — it has supported automatic HTTPS since 2015 and handles edge cases (OCSP stapling, on-demand TLS, fallback CAs) more robustly.
Related
Get self-hosting tips in your inbox
New guides, comparisons, and setup tutorials — delivered weekly. No spam.