StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Application & Data
  3. Platform as a Service
  4. Web Servers
  5. Apache HTTP Server vs Caddy

Apache HTTP Server vs Caddy

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Apache HTTP Server
Apache HTTP Server
Stacks64.5K
Followers22.8K
Votes1.4K
GitHub Stars3.8K
Forks1.2K
Caddy
Caddy
Stacks363
Followers282
Votes20
GitHub Stars67.7K
Forks4.5K

Apache HTTP Server vs Caddy: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this article, we will explore the key differences between Apache HTTP Server and Caddy. Apache HTTP Server and Caddy are both web server software that can be used to host websites and handle HTTP requests. While they have similar functionalities, there are several important differences between them. Let's take a closer look at these differences below.

  1. Configuration: Apache HTTP Server uses a complex configuration file, typically written in Apache's own format or in XML, that requires manual editing and reloading the server for changes to take effect. On the other hand, Caddy uses a simple and intuitive Caddyfile, written in plaintext, making it easier for users to configure and manage their server.

  2. Automatic HTTPS: One of the standout features of Caddy is its embedded automatic HTTPS feature. Caddy is designed to automatically provision and manage SSL/TLS certificates for websites, eliminating the need for users to manually obtain and configure certificates. In contrast, Apache HTTP Server requires users to manually obtain and configure SSL/TLS certificates.

  3. Plugin Ecosystem: Apache HTTP Server has a vast and mature plugin ecosystem, offering a wide range of modules for various functionalities. These modules can be dynamically loaded and configured to enhance the server's capabilities. Caddy, on the other hand, has a smaller but growing plugin ecosystem, making it a more lightweight and modular choice for specific use cases.

  4. Ease of Use: Caddy prides itself on its simplicity and ease of use. It is designed to have a minimal default configuration and focuses on providing a streamlined user experience. Apache HTTP Server, while highly customizable, often requires a steeper learning curve and more manual configuration to achieve the desired setup.

  5. Performance: Apache HTTP Server has a long-standing reputation for high performance and can handle a large number of concurrent connections and requests. Caddy, on the other hand, is built on the Go programming language and utilizes its concurrency capabilities, resulting in efficient handling of concurrent requests. While both servers are performant, the underlying technology and design choices may make a difference in specific scenarios.

  6. Community Support: Apache HTTP Server has a massive and well-established community, providing extensive support, documentation, and resources. The community-driven development ensures a robust and reliable product with a wealth of knowledge available to users. Caddy, being a relatively newer entrant, has a smaller community but boasts an active and passionate user base that continues to grow.

In summary, Apache HTTP Server and Caddy have distinct differences in terms of configuration, automatic HTTPS provisioning, plugin ecosystem, ease of use, performance, and community support. Understanding these differences can help users make an informed decision about which web server software best suits their specific requirements.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Advice on Apache HTTP Server, Caddy

Hari
Hari

Mar 3, 2020

Needs advice

I was in a situation where I have to configure 40 RHEL servers 20 each for Apache HTTP Server and Tomcat server. My task was to

  1. configure LVM with required logical volumes, format and mount for HTTP and Tomcat servers accordingly.
  2. Install apache and tomcat.
  3. Generate and apply selfsigned certs to http server.
  4. Modify default ports on Tomcat to different ports.
  5. Create users on RHEL for application support team.
  6. other administrative tasks like, start, stop and restart HTTP and Tomcat services.

I have utilized the power of ansible for all these tasks, which made it easy and manageable.

419k views419k
Comments
greg00m
greg00m

Mar 9, 2020

Needs advice

I am diving into web development, both front and back end. I feel comfortable with administration, scripting and moderate coding in bash, Python and C++, but I am also a Windows fan (i love inner conflict). What are the votes on web servers? IIS is expensive and restrictive (has Windows adoption of open source changed this?) Apache has the history but seems to be at the root of most of my Infosec issues, and I know nothing about nginx (is it too new to rely on?). And no, I don't know what I want to do on the web explicitly, but hosting and data storage (both cloud and tape) are possibilities.
Ready, aim fire!

766k views766k
Comments
Grant
Grant

Developer at GMS LLC

Sep 5, 2020

Decided
  • Server rendered HTML output from PHP is being migrated to the client as Vue.js components, future plans to provide additional content, and other new miscellaneous features all result in a substantial increase of static files needing to be served from the server. NGINX has better performance than Apache for serving static content.
  • The change to NGINX will require switching from PHP to PHP-FPM resulting in a distributed architecture with a higher complexity configuration, but this is outweighed by PHP-FPM being faster than PHP for processing requests.
  • The NGINX + PHP-FPM setup now allows for horizontally scaling of resources rather vertically scaling the previously combined Apache + PHP resources.
  • PHP shell tasks can now efficiently be decoupled from the application reducing main application footprint and allow for scaling of tasks on an individual basis.
429k views429k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Apache HTTP Server
Apache HTTP Server
Caddy
Caddy

The Apache HTTP Server is a powerful and flexible HTTP/1.1 compliant web server. Originally designed as a replacement for the NCSA HTTP Server, it has grown to be the most popular web server on the Internet.

Caddy 2 is a powerful, enterprise-ready, open source web server with automatic HTTPS written in Go.

-
Static file server; Reverse proxy; Load balancing; Automatic HTTPS; TLS by default; Caddyfile; Config API; Config adapters; HTTP/1.1; HTTP/2; HTTP/3; Virtual hosting; TLS ceritificate auto-renew; Extensible; No dependencies; Fewer moving parts
Statistics
GitHub Stars
3.8K
GitHub Stars
67.7K
GitHub Forks
1.2K
GitHub Forks
4.5K
Stacks
64.5K
Stacks
363
Followers
22.8K
Followers
282
Votes
1.4K
Votes
20
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 479
    Web server
  • 305
    Most widely-used web server
  • 217
    Virtual hosting
  • 148
    Fast
  • 138
    Ssl support
Cons
  • 4
    Hard to set up
Pros
  • 6
    Easy HTTP/2 Server Push
  • 6
    Sane config file syntax
  • 4
    Builtin HTTPS
  • 2
    Runtime config API
  • 2
    Letsencrypt support
Cons
  • 3
    New kid

What are some alternatives to Apache HTTP Server, Caddy?

NGINX

NGINX

nginx [engine x] is an HTTP and reverse proxy server, as well as a mail proxy server, written by Igor Sysoev. According to Netcraft nginx served or proxied 30.46% of the top million busiest sites in Jan 2018.

Unicorn

Unicorn

Unicorn is an HTTP server for Rack applications designed to only serve fast clients on low-latency, high-bandwidth connections and take advantage of features in Unix/Unix-like kernels. Slow clients should only be served by placing a reverse proxy capable of fully buffering both the the request and response in between Unicorn and slow clients.

Microsoft IIS

Microsoft IIS

Internet Information Services (IIS) for Windows Server is a flexible, secure and manageable Web server for hosting anything on the Web. From media streaming to web applications, IIS's scalable and open architecture is ready to handle the most demanding tasks.

Apache Tomcat

Apache Tomcat

Apache Tomcat powers numerous large-scale, mission-critical web applications across a diverse range of industries and organizations.

Passenger

Passenger

Phusion Passenger is a web server and application server, designed to be fast, robust and lightweight. It takes a lot of complexity out of deploying web apps, adds powerful enterprise-grade features that are useful in production, and makes administration much easier and less complex.

Gunicorn

Gunicorn

Gunicorn is a pre-fork worker model ported from Ruby's Unicorn project. The Gunicorn server is broadly compatible with various web frameworks, simply implemented, light on server resources, and fairly speedy.

Jetty

Jetty

Jetty is used in a wide variety of projects and products, both in development and production. Jetty can be easily embedded in devices, tools, frameworks, application servers, and clusters. See the Jetty Powered page for more uses of Jetty.

lighttpd

lighttpd

lighttpd has a very low memory footprint compared to other webservers and takes care of cpu-load. Its advanced feature-set (FastCGI, CGI, Auth, Output-Compression, URL-Rewriting and many more) make lighttpd the perfect webserver-software for every server that suffers load problems.

Swoole

Swoole

It is an open source high-performance network framework using an event-driven, asynchronous, non-blocking I/O model which makes it scalable and efficient.

Puma

Puma

Unlike other Ruby Webservers, Puma was built for speed and parallelism. Puma is a small library that provides a very fast and concurrent HTTP 1.1 server for Ruby web applications.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap
Materialize

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Laravel
Django

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap
Foundation

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js
Spring Boot

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Liquibase
Flyway

Flyway vs Liquibase