102 | Caddy vs. Traefik vs. HAProxy vs. Nginx vs. Apache: Comparing Web Servers and Proxies
September 6, 2025
Caddy vs. Traefik vs. HAProxy vs. Nginx vs. Apache
Introduction
Choosing a web server and reverse proxy today depends on tasks and infrastructure. Caddy, Traefik, HAProxy, Nginx, and Apache are five popular solutions, each with its strengths and weaknesses.
In this article, we’ll compare them by key criteria: philosophy, installation, SSL, CI/CD, and complexity.
Comparison by Key Criteria
Criterion | Caddy | Traefik | HAProxy | Nginx | Apache |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Philosophy | Simplicity, automatic SSL | Dynamic routing and Service Discovery | High-performance load balancer | Universal web server and proxy | Classic web server, static approach |
Installation | Single binary | Container, requires setup | Single binary, manual configuration | OS package, easy installation | OS package, easy installation |
SSL Automation | Built-in, main advantage | Built-in, part of ecosystem | No (requires external integration, e.g., certbot) | Partial (via certbot or modules) | Partial (via certbot or modules) |
CI/CD | Very easy integration | Ideal for microservices | Used for high-load balancing | Requires manual steps, integration possible | Requires manual steps, integration possible |
Complexity | Low, beginner-friendly | Medium/high, requires orchestrator knowledge | Medium, more complex configs | Medium, rich ecosystem | Medium, often bloated configs |
Performance | Good, but not top-tier | Good | Excellent, optimized for load balancing | Excellent | Average |
Best Use Case | Local development, quick MVPs | Docker/Kubernetes, microservices | High-load systems, load balancing | Universal choice for web and proxy | Static site hosting, legacy systems |
Who Is It For?
🔹 Caddy
Ideal for: