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. Apache Karaf vs Apache Tomcat

Apache Karaf vs Apache Tomcat

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Apache Tomcat
Apache Tomcat
Stacks16.9K
Followers12.6K
Votes201
GitHub Stars8.0K
Forks5.3K
Apache Karaf
Apache Karaf
Stacks10
Followers23
Votes0

Apache Karaf vs Apache Tomcat: What are the differences?

Introduction:

Apache Karaf and Apache Tomcat are both popular open-source software platforms used for server-side application development and deployment. While they share certain similarities, there are several key differences between them that set them apart in terms of functionality and usage.

  1. Server vs. Application Container: The primary difference between Apache Karaf and Apache Tomcat lies in their core purpose and functionality. Apache Tomcat is primarily an application server that is designed to execute Java servlets and JavaServer Pages (JSP) for web applications. On the other hand, Apache Karaf is a lightweight service-oriented applications container that provides a runtime environment specifically for building, deploying, and running enterprise applications.

  2. OSGi Support: Apache Karaf is built on top of the OSGi (Open Services Gateway Initiative) framework, which provides a modular and dynamic platform for developing and deploying Java applications. This means that Karaf supports a plugin-based architecture and enables the hot deployment of applications without downtime. In contrast, Apache Tomcat does not have native OSGi support and relies on web application archives (WAR files) for deployment.

  3. Feature-rich vs. Lightweight: Apache Karaf offers a wide range of additional features and capabilities out-of-the-box, including support for enterprise Java frameworks, dependency management, and a flexible deployment model. It also provides a command-line interface (CLI) and a web-based console for managing applications. In contrast, Apache Tomcat is designed to be lightweight and focuses solely on serving web applications without the added complexity of additional features.

  4. Portability and Integration: Apache Karaf emphasizes portability and integration, allowing applications to be easily deployed across different systems and environments. It provides support for various integration technologies and protocols, such as JMS (Java Message Service), ODBC (Open Database Connectivity), and LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol). Apache Tomcat, on the other hand, is primarily geared towards web application deployment and lacks the same level of portability and integration capabilities.

  5. Application Type: Apache Karaf is well-suited for developing and deploying complex, multi-tiered enterprise applications that require a modular and dynamic architecture. It supports the deployment of various types of applications, including web applications, microservices, and web services. Apache Tomcat is more focused on web application deployment, making it a simpler and more streamlined option for applications that primarily serve HTTP requests.

  6. Community and Vendor Support: Both Apache Karaf and Apache Tomcat have active and supportive communities. However, Apache Tomcat has been around for a longer time and has a larger user base and wider industry adoption. This often translates to better vendor support, more extensive documentation, and a larger pool of available plugins and extensions for Apache Tomcat.

In summary, Apache Karaf and Apache Tomcat differ in their core functionality, with Karaf serving as a lightweight service-oriented applications container with OSGi support, while Tomcat focuses on serving web applications as an application server. Karaf offers more features, flexibility, and integration options, making it suitable for complex enterprise applications, while Tomcat is a simpler and more streamlined option for web application deployment.

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

Detailed Comparison

Apache Tomcat
Apache Tomcat
Apache Karaf
Apache Karaf

Apache Tomcat powers numerous large-scale, mission-critical web applications across a diverse range of industries and organizations.

Apache Karaf is a modern and polymorphic container. Karaf can be used standalone as a container, supporting a wide range of applications and technologies.

-
osgi;container;apache;pluggeable
Statistics
GitHub Stars
8.0K
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Forks
5.3K
GitHub Forks
-
Stacks
16.9K
Stacks
10
Followers
12.6K
Followers
23
Votes
201
Votes
0
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 79
    Easy
  • 72
    Java
  • 49
    Popular
  • 1
    Spring web
Cons
  • 3
    Blocking - each http request block a thread
  • 2
    Easy to set up
No community feedback yet

What are some alternatives to Apache Tomcat, Apache Karaf?

NGINX

NGINX

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.

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.

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