Caddy versus Kong

My new work uses Kong Open-Source API Management Gateway for Microservices and I am trying to compare it to Caddy to better understand it.

IIUC it has an API to add sites. Whilst Caddy has its Caddyfile as it’s main configuration source.

So I am wondering has Caddy every considered going down the direction of a programmatic configuration API?


Have you seen Caddy - The Ultimate Server with Automatic HTTPS?

Ha! I didn’t know about this.

So now I’m wondering how else Kong differs from Caddy. Anyone care to chime in, or they can’t really be compared?

Thank you!

@hendry It’s a bit difficult to compare the two. Kong is purely an API gateway/reverse proxy, whereas Caddy is primarily a web server, though it works just fine as reverse proxy. It’s been a while since I used Kong, but I remember it being awkward to configure and deploy, partly since it required a database to store its configuration (this is no longer required, but I believe still recommended in production).

As far as other differences, Kong is Lua running on top of OpenResty/nginx, whereas Caddy is pure Go.

1 Like