head to head · open source

caddy vs WR.DO

caddy has 75,840 GitHub stars, 4,970 forks, 286 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. WR.DO has 2,279 stars, 364 forks, 7 open issues and last shipped 7 days ago. caddy leads on adoption by 3,228% (75,840 vs 2,279 stars). caddy is written in Go under Apache-2.0; WR.DO is written in TypeScript under MIT. caddy has attracted 7% as many forks as stars, WR.DO 16%. caddy 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 ★ 76K WR.DO ★ 2.3K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 15422 open source comparisons

Side by side

caddy WR.DO
GitHub stars ★ 76K ★ 2.3K
License Apache-2.0 MIT
Written in Go TypeScript
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-12
Forks ⑂ 5.0K ⑂ 364
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 WR.DO if

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

full WR.DO 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 WR.DO

WR.DO free open source MIT TypeScript Next.js self hosted one stop domain service platform. It combines short link generation, unlimited domain email, Cloudflare subdomain management, S3 compatible file storage, open API, admin panel. It targets operators needing one control plane for DNS records, links, mailboxes, files, users.

read the full WR.DO overview →

More in Infrastructure & Operations

kubernetes ★ 128K Immich ★ 115K frp ★ 110K Uptime Kuma ★ 92K worldmonitor ★ 87K mall ★ 85K

Related comparisons

immich vs wr-do uptime-kuma vs wr-do worldmonitor vs wr-do mall vs wr-do immich vs openvpn uptime-kuma vs openvpn worldmonitor vs openvpn mall 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 ansible vs compose ansible vs conductor ansible vs xxl-job ansible vs gitleaks ansible vs kestra ansible vs haystack

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 openvpn-install caddy vs amnezia-client caddy vs OpenVPN caddy vs coredns caddy vs sliver caddy vs smartdns caddy vs OpenSurge-for-Mac

Frequently asked questions

Is caddy or WR.DO more popular?

caddy has 75,840 GitHub stars and WR.DO has 2,279. caddy has the larger community by that measure.

Are caddy and WR.DO free?

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

What is the difference between caddy and WR.DO?

caddy is written in Go and WR.DO in TypeScript. 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 WR.DO?

Choose caddy if you want the larger community (75,840 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose WR.DO if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.