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. nginx vs uWSGI

nginx vs uWSGI

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

NGINX
NGINX
Stacks115.0K
Followers61.9K
Votes5.5K
GitHub Stars28.4K
Forks7.6K
uWSGI
uWSGI
Stacks424
Followers311
Votes12
GitHub Stars3.5K
Forks699

nginx vs uWSGI: What are the differences?

NGINX vs uWSGI

Introduction

When it comes to hosting web applications and serving them to clients, two popular solutions are NGINX and uWSGI. While both of them have their own unique features and benefits, there are several key differences between the two.

  1. Web Server vs Application Server: NGINX is primarily a web server that is designed to handle serving static content efficiently. On the other hand, uWSGI is an application server that is used to run Python web applications. While NGINX can also act as a reverse proxy and load balancer, uWSGI is specifically optimized for running Python applications.

  2. HTTP and HTTPS Support: NGINX is well-known for its out-of-the-box support for HTTP and HTTPS protocols. It can handle SSL/TLS encryption, perform SSL termination, and implement various security measures. uWSGI, on the other hand, does not provide these functionalities by default. It requires additional configuration and setup to enable HTTPS support.

  3. Request Handling: NGINX is highly optimized for handling a large number of concurrent connections and efficiently serving static files. It uses an event-driven, asynchronous architecture, which allows it to handle multiple requests simultaneously without blocking other requests. uWSGI, on the other hand, is designed to handle Python web applications and provides features like request routing, session management, and more. It is more suitable for dynamic content generation and interacting with databases.

  4. Ease of Configuration: NGINX provides a simple and flexible configuration syntax, making it easy to configure and manage. It uses a declarative approach where configuration directives are used to define the desired behavior. uWSGI, on the other hand, has a more complex configuration syntax and requires additional Python code to configure and customize the application behavior. It requires more expertise and understanding of the Python ecosystem.

  5. Resource Utilization: NGINX is known for its low memory footprint and high performance when serving static content. It can efficiently handle a large number of concurrent connections with minimal resource consumption. uWSGI, on the other hand, consumes more system resources due to its additional features and functionalities for running Python applications. It is more suitable for applications with dynamic content and heavy processing requirements.

  6. Ecosystem and Community Support: NGINX has a large and active community with a vast ecosystem of modules and extensions. It has been widely adopted and is supported by various web frameworks and tools. uWSGI, on the other hand, has a smaller community compared to NGINX but is widely used for hosting Python applications. It provides integration with popular Python frameworks like Django and Flask, making it a preferred choice for Python developers.

In summary, NGINX is a versatile web server with excellent performance and extensive community support, making it suitable for serving static content and acting as a reverse proxy. uWSGI, on the other hand, is an application server specifically designed for Python web applications, providing features like request routing and session management. It requires additional configuration and resources but offers better support for dynamic content generation.

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 NGINX, uWSGI

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
jlp78
jlp78

May 31, 2019

ReviewonNGINXNGINX

I use nginx because it is very light weight. Where Apache tries to include everything in the web server, nginx opts to have external programs/facilities take care of that so the web server can focus on efficiently serving web pages. While this can seem inefficient, it limits the number of new bugs found in the web server, which is the element that faces the client most directly.

727k views727k
Comments
StackShare
StackShare

May 29, 2019

Needs advice

From a StackShare Community member: "We are a LAMP shop currently focused on improving web performance for our customers. We have made many front-end optimizations and now we are considering replacing Apache with nginx. I was wondering if others saw a noticeable performance gain or any other benefits by switching."

725k views725k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

NGINX
NGINX
uWSGI
uWSGI

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.

The uWSGI project aims at developing a full stack for building hosting services.

Statistics
GitHub Stars
28.4K
GitHub Stars
3.5K
GitHub Forks
7.6K
GitHub Forks
699
Stacks
115.0K
Stacks
424
Followers
61.9K
Followers
311
Votes
5.5K
Votes
12
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 1453
    High-performance http server
  • 895
    Performance
  • 730
    Easy to configure
  • 607
    Open source
  • 530
    Load balancer
Cons
  • 10
    Advanced features require subscription
Pros
  • 6
    Faster
  • 4
    Simple
  • 2
    Powerful
Integrations
No integrations available
Python
Python
Perl
Perl
Ruby
Ruby

What are some alternatives to NGINX, uWSGI?

Apache HTTP Server

Apache HTTP Server

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.

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