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. Unicorn vs nginx

Unicorn vs nginx

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

NGINX
NGINX
Stacks115.0K
Followers61.9K
Votes5.5K
GitHub Stars28.4K
Forks7.6K
Unicorn
Unicorn
Stacks479
Followers401
Votes295
GitHub Stars1.5K
Forks269

Unicorn vs nginx: What are the differences?

Introduction

Unicorn and nginx are both popular web server software that have their own distinct features and functionalities. While they are both designed to serve web applications, there are key differences between the two.

  1. Scalability: Unicorn is best suited for applications that are designed to handle many concurrent requests at a time. It uses a "one process per request" model, which means that it spawns a new worker process to handle each incoming request. This allows Unicorn to handle a large number of concurrent connections efficiently. On the other hand, nginx is known for its high scalability and performance. It uses an event-driven architecture and can handle thousands of concurrent connections with ease.

  2. Load Balancing: Unicorn does not have built-in load balancing capabilities. It is typically used with a reverse proxy server like nginx or HAProxy to distribute incoming requests among multiple Unicorn instances. Nginx, on the other hand, comes with built-in load balancing features. It can distribute incoming requests among multiple backend servers based on various algorithms like round robin, IP hash, etc.

  3. Websockets Support: Unicorn does not natively support Websockets, which are used for real-time communication between a client and a server. It is not designed to handle long-lived connections and does not provide the necessary functionality for implementing Websockets. Nginx, on the other hand, provides full support for Websockets and can handle the bidirectional communication required for real-time applications.

  4. Static File Serving: Nginx is known for its efficient handling of static files. It is often used as a reverse proxy server or a front-end proxy server to serve static files directly from disk. It can also cache static files in memory, resulting in improved performance and reduced load on the backend application servers. Unicorn, on the other hand, is primarily designed to handle dynamic requests and is not as efficient at serving static files.

  5. Configuration: Unicorn is a Ruby application server and is typically configured using Ruby code. It requires a separate configuration file and does not have a built-in configuration interface. Nginx, on the other hand, uses a declarative configuration syntax that is easy to understand and modify. It provides a variety of configuration options and can be customized to meet specific requirements without requiring any coding.

  6. SSL/TLS Support: Nginx has extensive support for SSL/TLS protocols and can handle encrypted connections with ease. It can be easily configured to use SSL certificates, enable HTTPS, and enforce HTTPS redirection. Unicorn, on the other hand, does not have built-in SSL/TLS support. It relies on a reverse proxy server like nginx or HAProxy to handle SSL/TLS termination.

In Summary, Unicorn is a Ruby application server that is well-suited for applications requiring high concurrency, while nginx is a powerful web server known for its scalability, load balancing capabilities, Websockets support, efficient static file serving, easy configuration, and extensive SSL/TLS support.

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, Unicorn

Daniel
Daniel

Co-Founder at Polpo Data Analytics & Software Development

May 25, 2021

Decided

For us, NGINX is a lite HTTP server easy to configure. On our research, we found a well-documented software we a lot of support from the community.

We have been using it alongside tools like certbot and it has been a total success.

We can easily configure our sites and have a folder for available vs enabled sites, and with the nginx -t command we can easily check everything is running fine.

289k views289k
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

NGINX
NGINX
Unicorn
Unicorn

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 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.

Statistics
GitHub Stars
28.4K
GitHub Stars
1.5K
GitHub Forks
7.6K
GitHub Forks
269
Stacks
115.0K
Stacks
479
Followers
61.9K
Followers
401
Votes
5.5K
Votes
295
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
  • 81
    Fast
  • 59
    Performance
  • 36
    Web server
  • 30
    Open Source
  • 30
    Very light
Cons
  • 4
    Not multithreaded

What are some alternatives to NGINX, Unicorn?

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.

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.

Caddy

Caddy

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

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