Kipper vs Coolify, Dokploy, Dokku, Sealos, CapRover and Kubero
Most self-hosted PaaS comparisons put Docker tools next to each other. This one is written from the Kubernetes side, because that is the choice that separates these projects, and it says where each of the others is the better answer.
Every figure here was checked against each project's own repository and documentation on 28 August 2026. Star counts move, and they measure attention rather than installations, so read them as a rough guide to how long a project has been under public scrutiny.
The short version
| Stars | License | Orchestrator | Installs Kubernetes on a plain Linux box | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coolify | 61,138 | Apache-2.0 | Docker and Compose, with experimental Swarm | Docker rather than Kubernetes |
| Dokploy | 36,925 | Apache-2.0, except content under proprietary directories, which is under the Dokploy Source Available License and needs a commercial agreement for production use | Docker and Compose, Swarm for multiple nodes | Docker rather than Kubernetes |
| Dokku | 32,112 | MIT | Docker by default, k3s through scheduler-k3s | Yes, through the k3s scheduler |
| Sealos | 18,328 | Sealos Sustainable Use License, source-available | Its own Kubernetes distribution | Yes |
| CapRover | 15,146 | Apache-2.0 with an appendix that overrides it where they conflict, covering paid features and modified free features | Docker Swarm | Docker rather than Kubernetes |
| Kubero | 4,398 | GPL-3.0 | Kubernetes | On GKE, Scaleway, DigitalOcean, Linode or local Kind, or bring your own cluster |
| Kipper | 7 | Apache-2.0 | k3s | Yes, by default |
Read the license column carefully if it matters to you. Three of these are something other than a standard OSI license, and the differences are the kind that surface late.
Kipper is much younger than all of them and has not reached 1.0. Seven stars against Coolify's sixty-one thousand is the honest picture.
Where each one is the better choice
Coolify has the largest GitHub following here, a catalog of over 370 one-click services, support for many host operating systems, and it asks nothing of you about Kubernetes. It covers production workflows too, with automatic git deployments, isolated pull request previews, teams and environments, and deployment across several servers. For a media server, a wiki and a couple of side projects on one box, it is also the straightforward answer.
Dokploy gives you a polished interface, native Docker Compose support, and Swarm when you want a second node, all under Apache-2.0. Its enterprise features live in proprietary directories under a separate source-available license: single sign-on, audit logs, custom roles and license keys among them, all needing a commercial agreement to run in production. Check which side of that line the features you want sit on.
Dokku is the choice for the Heroku model and the command line. It is the oldest project here, MIT licensed with no carve-outs, and it has a mature plugin ecosystem. Its scheduler-k3s plugin runs apps as genuine Kubernetes workloads, so Dokku does reach Kubernetes; that plugin is an alternative to the default Docker scheduler and expects more setup from you.
Sealos targets running a cloud rather than a server. For building a multi-tenant platform others deploy onto, it has solved problems Kipper has not touched. Its license permits internal business use and prohibits offering it as a cloud service to third parties, so read it before building a product on top.
CapRover has been public since 2017, a one-line install, and straightforward multi-node scaling on Swarm. Its license appendix adds terms covering modification and redistribution of paid features, and says modifications of free features should be distributed as free and open source software.
Kubero is closest to Kipper in shape, a PaaS whose apps run as Kubernetes workloads. It brings its own pipelines and pull request review apps, add-ons installed as Helm charts, and a catalog of app templates that need no Helm chart of your own. The difference is where the cluster comes from: Kubero provisions one on a managed provider or uses one you already have, while Kipper builds the cluster on the server you point it at.
Where Kipper fits
Kipper's install path is its distinguishing feature. One command over SSH takes a plain Ubuntu, Debian, Rocky Linux, AlmaLinux or CentOS Stream box and leaves you with k3s, a web console, Let's Encrypt certificates, persistent storage, an identity provider and backups, configured together.
Your apps are ordinary Kubernetes objects, so kubectl works against them, the concepts your team learns transfer to any other cluster, and the resources are inspectable with standard tools. That is worth having if you want Kubernetes and have nobody to run it full time. It reduces some of the work of a later move to EKS or GKE, though anything that depends on Kipper's own ingress, storage or identity conventions still has to be rebuilt for the target platform.
When to pick something else
- Docker suits you better than Kubernetes. Kubernetes has more moving parts and more to understand when something breaks. Coolify and CapRover will make you happier.
- You already run a cluster. Kipper installs one. Kubero is built for the case where you bring your own.
- You need proven software. Kipper has not reached 1.0. Every project above has years of public releases behind it.
- You are running a multi-tenant cloud. That is Sealos territory.
- Your license requirements are strict. Dokku (MIT), Coolify (Apache-2.0), Kubero (GPL-3.0) and Kipper (Apache-2.0) all use standard licenses with no added terms. Dokploy, CapRover and Sealos each carry something extra.
The overhead question
The real objection to Kubernetes on a small server is resource cost rather than the word itself. Kipper runs k3s, Traefik, cert-manager, Longhorn, Dex, KEDA, a registry, a logging and metrics stack, backups and its own console and API, which asks considerably more of a server than a Docker daemon does. The installer requires at least 4 GB RAM and enough disk space for its system volumes and images. A 40 GB disk is a starting point. The getting started guide recommends at least 2 vCPU, with 4 vCPU, 8 GB RAM and an 80 GB disk for more headroom.
Measured on 30 August 2026, on a fresh 4 vCPU Ubuntu 26.04 server with 7740 MiB of RAM. Two minutes after every component first reported healthy, with no service or app deployed, free reported 4029 MiB used, about 3.9 GiB. A second reading, two minutes after a Postgres service, a MySQL service and an nginx app were all reporting ready and the app was serving over HTTPS, gave 4624 MiB, about 4.5 GiB. Both are whole-server figures including Ubuntu itself, rather than the sum of Kipper's own processes.
Take each as a reading at one moment rather than a steady state or an average. Two of them, on one machine, taken once. The gap between them belongs to everything that happened in between, not to those three workloads alone.
The installer selects a sizing profile from the server's RAM and CPU count. These measurements use medium, the default for 7740 MiB with 4 vCPUs. With enough CPU capacity, a host between 6000 and 7499 MiB gets small, which keeps Prometheus, Loki and Grafana enabled and lowers the memory limits for Prometheus and Loki. Below 6000 MiB, nano disables monitoring by default to leave memory for apps. A default installation on a 4 GB host therefore runs fewer components than the measured server. A 6 GB host runs monitoring with lower limits. These measurements apply to the profile and hardware tested.