head to head · open source

caddy vs bind9

caddy has 76,688 GitHub stars, 5,050 forks, 286 open issues and last shipped today. bind9 has 779 stars, 186 forks, 0 open issues and last shipped today. caddy leads on adoption by 9,744% (76,688 vs 779 stars). caddy is written in Go under Apache-2.0; bind9 is written in C under MPL-2.0. caddy has attracted 7% as many forks as stars, bind9 24%. bind9 was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

caddy ★ 77K bind9 ★ 779 category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

caddy bind9
GitHub stars ★ 77K ★ 779
License Apache-2.0 MPL-2.0
Written in Go C
Last push 2026-10-05 2026-10-05
Forks ⑂ 5.0K ⑂ 186
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick caddy if

  • You weight community size — 77K stars and counting
  • You want the Apache-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full caddy profile →

pick bind9 if

  • You want the bind9 feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the MPL-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches C
  • You evaluated both and bind9 fits your workflow better

full bind9 profile →

About caddy

Caddy is a Go based, Apache 2.0 licensed HTTP/1.1, HTTP/2, and HTTP/3 web server and reverse proxy that obtains and renews TLS certificates automatically by default, built for operators and teams who want every site on HTTPS without maintaining a separate certificate workflow.

read the full caddy overview →

About bind9

BIND 9 is a complete, highly portable open source implementation of the Domain Name System protocol, written in C, for operators and organisations that need to run authoritative, recursive, or forwarding DNS infrastructure themselves.

read the full bind9 overview →

More in Infrastructure & Operations

kubernetes ★ 128K Immich ★ 116K frp ★ 110K Uptime Kuma ★ 92K worldmonitor ★ 88K mall ★ 85K

Related comparisons

frp vs caddy caddy vs traefik frp vs traefik frp vs adguardhome frp vs nginx frp vs algo frp vs nginx-proxy immich vs openvpn n8n vs huginn uptime-kuma vs worldmonitor uptime-kuma vs netdata uptime-kuma vs grafana worldmonitor vs netdata worldmonitor vs grafana uptime-kuma vs prometheus netdata vs grafana n8n vs kestra langchain vs haystack kubernetes vs rancher ansible vs compose ansible vs conductor ansible vs xxl-job ansible vs gitleaks ansible vs kestra

More Networking & Connectivity projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Networking & Connectivity field.

caddy vs frp caddy vs traefik caddy vs AdGuardHome caddy vs nginx caddy vs algo caddy vs nginx-proxy caddy vs goproxy caddy vs openvpn-install caddy vs cloudflared caddy vs amnezia-client caddy vs OpenVPN caddy vs coredns

Frequently asked questions

Is caddy or bind9 more popular?

caddy has 76,688 GitHub stars and bind9 has 779. caddy has the larger community by that measure.

Are caddy and bind9 free?

Both are open source. caddy is licensed under Apache-2.0 and bind9 under MPL-2.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between caddy and bind9?

caddy is written in Go and bind9 in C. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, caddy or bind9?

Choose caddy if you want the larger community (76,688 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose bind9 if its feature set, stack or MPL-2.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.