- They don't describe themselves as the same kind of thing
- Who should choose Caddy
- Who should choose Traefik
- What's the same on both sides
- A config file or labels: what it feels like day to day
- No runtime dependencies, in practice
- The port 443 detail to check first
- Questions that usually settle it
- When your current proxy is fine
- Before you switch from one to the other
- Frequently asked questions
Pick Caddy if you'd like one binary that serves sites, proxies requests and handles HTTPS from a short config file. Pick Traefik if your services run in containers and you want routes set by labels as containers start. Both are open source, and both obtain certificates automatically through ACME, so HTTPS isn't what separates them.
If you're a self-hoster or developer putting a reverse proxy in front of your apps, Caddy and Traefik come up again and again, usually because both promise automatic HTTPS. The real difference is in how you describe what you want: in a config file, or on the containers themselves.
| Caddy | Traefik | |
|---|---|---|
| Self-description | Extensible platform | Application Proxy |
| Licence | Open source | Open source |
| Routes set in | A short config file | Container labels |
| Certificates | Automatic by default | ACME resolver |
| Grows into | Extensible | API and AI gateway |
They don't describe themselves as the same kind of thing
Read each project's front page and you'll notice they're pitching different products. Caddy calls itself an extensible platform to serve sites, services and apps, written in Go, and its docs show a few lines of config running WordPress. Traefik's docs call it an open-source Application Proxy at the core of a wider runtime platform from the same company.
That framing tells you a lot. One starts from the idea of hosting websites and treats proxying as one of its jobs. The other starts from routing traffic to services and grows towards gateway features. If your plan is a handful of sites on one machine, the first shape will feel natural. If your plan is a fleet of containers coming and going, the second will.
Who should choose Caddy
Go with it if you want one file to install and one short config to read. Its docs say it compiles for all major platforms and has no runtime dependencies, so there's very little to set up before your first site is live. Its own page also says it was the first web server to use HTTPS automatically and by default, which means you don't have to think about certificates for a normal site.
It suits people who serve static sites, a blog, or a few apps on one server, and anyone who'd rather read a config file than a set of labels spread across compose files. If you're also weighing a classic server, our Caddy vs nginx comparison covers that pairing.
Who should choose Traefik
Pick it if your services already live in Docker. With its Docker provider, you attach labels to each container in your compose file and the routing is built from those labels, so a new service brings its own route instead of you editing one central file every time. That fits teams who spin services up and down often.
It also suits anyone who expects to need more later. Its docs talk about adding API management, API gateway and AI gateway capabilities as needed, on top of the core proxy. For another angle, see our Traefik vs nginx breakdown.
What's the same on both sides
- Both are open source.
- Both get TLS certificates for you through ACME.
- Both can sit in front of your apps as a reverse proxy.
- Both can be extended beyond the basics, in different directions.
Because certificates are handled on both sides, don't let HTTPS decide this for you. The deciding factor is how you'd rather describe your routes and how often they change.
A config file or labels: what it feels like day to day
With a central config file, everything about your routing is in one place. You open it, read it top to bottom, and see every site and every proxy rule. That's lovely for a small setup and for anyone who likes to review changes in one diff.
With labels, the routing for each service lives next to that service. Add a container and its route comes along; remove it and the route goes too. That's tidy when services change often, but there's no single file that shows the whole picture, so agree early how the team will check what's live.
Think about who on your team will debug a broken route at an awkward hour, and which of those two habits they'd find easier. A setup that one person loves and everyone else avoids isn't a good setup, however clever it is. Pick the style the whole team can read without a tour.
No runtime dependencies, in practice
A server that compiles for all major platforms with no runtime dependencies is easy to move around. You copy one file to a new machine, add your config, and start it. There's no separate language runtime to install first and keep patched alongside it.
Want AI doing the heavy lifting in your marketing?
I build the systems that handle the boring 80 percent, so you get your week back. Done properly, with the human kept in.
That matters most on small boxes, home servers and short-lived test machines, where every extra package is one more thing to forget about. On a container platform the advantage is smaller, because the image already bundles what it needs, which is another reason the two tools tend to suit different setups.
The port 443 detail to check first
One practical note from Traefik's ACME resolver docs: for the TLS-ALPN challenge, Let's Encrypt has to reach the proxy on port 443. If it sits behind a home router, a firewall or another load balancer that doesn't pass that port straight through, certificate requests can fail. Check the port before you blame the config.
The same logic applies to any automatic certificate setup: the certificate authority has to reach you somehow. Open the relevant ports on a test box, watch the logs during the first request, and only then point real domains at it.
Questions that usually settle it
- Do your apps already run as containers with a compose file?
- Would you rather read one file that lists every route, or keep each route next to its service?
- How often do services appear and disappear in a normal week?
- Will you need gateway features for APIs or AI traffic in the next year?
- Who else will need to understand this setup if you're away?
If most of your answers point towards containers and frequent change, the label-based approach will feel at home. If they point towards a few stable sites and one person in charge, a single config file is likely the calmer choice.
When your current proxy is fine
If routes work, certificates renew on their own and you can read the setup without a headache, there's no prize for switching. Swap when something specific blocks you: a move to containers, a need for gateway features, or a config that's grown harder to follow than it should be. Curiosity is a fine reason to try the other one on a spare machine at the weekend, just not a reason to move production.
Before you switch from one to the other
- List every domain, route, redirect and header you serve today.
- Note how certificates are issued now and which ports the challenge uses.
- Build the new proxy on a test machine with a staging subdomain.
- Recreate one low-traffic route and compare responses side by side.
- Watch certificate issuance and renewal on the test box before any expiry date.
- Move routes across one at a time, keeping the old setup ready to roll back.
Frequently asked questions
Do both handle HTTPS without manual work?
Yes, both use ACME to fetch certificates.
Which one is easier for one small website?
Caddy's short config file is often the easier start for a single site.
What is ACME, in a sentence?
It's the protocol both use to request TLS certificates automatically; check each project's docs for the challenge types it supports.
Does the Go-based option need a runtime installed first?
No. Its docs say it has no runtime dependencies, so one file is enough.
Do I need containers for label-based routing?
Yes. The labels live on the services themselves, so without containers there's nothing to hang them on.
