Why I Use Caddy Instead of Nginx

The question of caddy vs nginx often comes down to whether you value automatic certificate management and readable configuration over fine-grained control and raw performance. For a solo developer maintaining multiple live products on a single server, Caddy’s ease of use typically outweighs the marginal performance gains of Nginx, provided your traffic is not extreme.

Automatic Certificates and Readable Config

Running five distinct products from one independent studio means maintaining five different entry points. The setup here is specific: one Next.js process serves four sites via host-based routing, including the main domain, the film publication at flix.pracandy.com, the wallpaper app, and an internal admin panel. Additionally, Instalaz runs as a separate Node process on port 3050, while GamingCap and Invoiceful are static builds served directly from disk. There is no database for the static sites, and the dynamic services share a single PostgreSQL 16 instance. This architecture is simple, but managing TLS for each host is a recurring task.

Caddy handles this automatically. It obtains certificates from Let's Encrypt without additional configuration. In Nginx, this requires setting up certbot and configuring renewal hooks, a process that adds maintenance overhead. The Caddyfile is also significantly more readable. It uses indentation to define blocks, which maps intuitively to the structure of the request. For a developer working alone, the time saved in reading and editing configuration files is substantial. The syntax is less verbose, reducing the chance of syntax errors that can take down a site.

Performance and Resource Usage

Nginx is written in C and is highly optimized for handling a large number of concurrent connections with minimal memory overhead. Caddy is written in Go, which has a larger memory footprint. On a VPS with 12GB of RAM, this difference is negligible for the current workload. The static sites for GamingCap and Invoiceful are lightweight, and the Next.js and Node processes consume the majority of the resources. However, if the traffic were to scale to thousands of concurrent users, Nginx would likely handle the load more efficiently. For an independent studio, the current traffic levels do not justify the complexity of Nginx. The performance gain is not visible to the end user, and the operational simplicity of Caddy is more valuable.

Where Caddy Falls Short

Caddy is not a drop-in replacement for every Nginx feature. It lacks some of the advanced modules and fine-grained controls that Nginx offers. For example, Nginx has a vast ecosystem of third-party modules that can be compiled in. Caddy’s module system is different, and some specific functionalities may not be available. If a product requires specific header manipulation or complex load balancing rules that are not covered by Caddy’s built-in features, Nginx might be the better choice. Additionally, Caddy’s logging and monitoring capabilities are less mature than Nginx’s. For a production environment that requires detailed audit trails or integration with specific monitoring tools, Nginx provides more options. However, for the current setup, these limitations do not impact the functionality of the live products.

Choosing the Right Tool

The choice between Caddy and Nginx depends on the specific needs of the project. For a solo developer managing a small number of sites with moderate traffic, Caddy is often the better choice. The automatic certificate management and readable configuration reduce the cognitive load and the risk of misconfiguration. Nginx is a powerful tool, but it requires more expertise to configure and maintain. The decision should be based on the trade-off between performance and simplicity. In this case, the simplicity of Caddy aligns with the operational needs of an independent studio. The products run smoothly, the certificates are renewed automatically, and the configuration is easy to understand. This allows the focus to remain on building and maintaining the products rather than managing the infrastructure.