HiClawvsmitmproxy
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| HiClaw | mitmproxy | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 67/100 | 86/100 |
| Rank in category | #32 of 209 in AI Agents | #1 of 48 in Network Monitoring |
| GitHub stars | 5 886 | 46 462 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +223 | +1 327 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 15 | 5 |
| Latest release | v1.2.5 · 16 Oct 2026 | v12.3.1 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Go | Python |
Which one should you pick?
mitmproxy scores 86/100 against 67/100 for HiClaw, so it is the safer default.
HiClaw ships more often: 15 stable releases in the past year, against 5 for mitmproxy.
If you want the quickest setup, HiClaw is easier to run; mitmproxy needs more configuration.
mitmproxy is growing faster right now (+1 327 stars in 30 days).
HiClaw details →mitmproxy details →