head to head · open source

caddy vs numa

caddy has 76,149 GitHub stars, 5,013 forks, 286 open issues and last shipped yesterday. numa has 1,513 stars, 107 forks, 28 open issues and last shipped yesterday. caddy leads on adoption by 4,933% (76,149 vs 1,513 stars). caddy is written in Go under Apache-2.0; numa is written in Rust under MIT. caddy has attracted 7% as many forks as stars, numa 7%. numa was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (reverse-proxy), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.

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 ★ 76K numa ★ 1.5K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

caddy numa
GitHub stars ★ 76K ★ 1.5K
License Apache-2.0 MIT
Written in Go Rust
Last push 2026-09-28 2026-09-28
Forks ⑂ 5.0K ⑂ 107
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick caddy if

  • You weight community size — 76K 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 numa if

  • You want the numa feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches Rust
  • You evaluated both and numa fits your workflow better

full numa 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 numa

numa is a portable DNS resolver written in Rust and shipped as a single roughly 8 MB binary, aimed at developers, self hosters and privacy conscious laptop users who want ad blocking, .numa local service names, hostname overrides and ODoH encrypted upstream queries without a cloud account or a Raspberry Pi.

read the full numa overview →

More in Infrastructure & Operations

kubernetes ★ 128K Immich ★ 115K 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 numa more popular?

caddy has 76,149 GitHub stars and numa has 1,513. caddy has the larger community by that measure.

Are caddy and numa free?

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

What is the difference between caddy and numa?

caddy is written in Go and numa in Rust. 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 numa?

Choose caddy if you want the larger community (76,149 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose numa if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.