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. Utilities
  3. Caching
  4. Web Cache
  5. Apache Traffic Server vs Squid

Apache Traffic Server vs Squid

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Squid
Squid
Stacks101
Followers205
Votes17
GitHub Stars2.7K
Forks594
Apache Traffic Server
Apache Traffic Server
Stacks452
Followers57
Votes0
GitHub Stars1.9K
Forks842

Apache Traffic Server vs Squid: What are the differences?

Introduction Apache Traffic Server and Squid are both widely used caching proxy servers that help improve the performance and efficiency of web applications. While they share some similarities, there are several key differences between the two that make them suitable for different use cases.

  1. Architecture: Apache Traffic Server has a modular architecture, where different components can be added or removed based on specific requirements. This modular approach allows for better customization and scalability. On the other hand, Squid follows a more monolithic architecture, where all the functionalities are bundled together in a single package. This makes it easier to install and configure, but less flexible in terms of customization and scalability.

  2. Performance: When it comes to performance, Apache Traffic Server outperforms Squid in terms of handling high traffic loads. Its event-driven architecture and efficient processing of HTTP transactions make it capable of handling millions of requests per second. Squid, on the other hand, may struggle to handle extremely high traffic loads and may require additional configurations or hardware optimizations to achieve similar performance levels.

  3. Cache Hierarchy: While both Apache Traffic Server and Squid support caching, Apache Traffic Server offers a more advanced cache hierarchy. It allows administrators to configure multiple levels of caches, including edge caches and parent caches, to optimize cache hit ratios and reduce overall latency. Squid, on the other hand, primarily focuses on a single cache level, which may limit its caching capabilities in complex deployment scenarios.

  4. Logging and Monitoring: Apache Traffic Server provides extensive logging and monitoring capabilities, allowing administrators to track and analyze various metrics such as cache hit/miss rates, request/response times, and cache utilization. Squid also offers logging and monitoring features, but its capabilities may be more limited compared to Apache Traffic Server's extensive monitoring toolkit.

  5. Community and Support: Both Apache Traffic Server and Squid have active community support, but Apache Traffic Server benefits from a larger and more diverse community. This larger community ensures a wider range of plugins, extensions, and documentation available, making it easier to find solutions to specific problems. Squid, although with a smaller community, has been around for a longer time, which means it has a more mature ecosystem with established best practices and a wealth of online resources.

  6. Ease of Configuration: Squid is known for its simplicity and ease of configuration, making it a popular choice for smaller deployments or users with limited technical expertise. On the other hand, Apache Traffic Server offers more advanced configuration options and granular control over caching policies and behavior. This level of configurability can be beneficial for complex deployments or organizations with specific caching requirements.

In summary, Apache Traffic Server and Squid are both powerful caching proxy servers, but they differ in terms of architecture, performance, cache hierarchy, logging and monitoring capabilities, community support, and ease of configuration. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the application and the desired level of customization and scalability.

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

Squid
Squid
Apache Traffic Server
Apache Traffic Server

Squid reduces bandwidth and improves response times by caching and reusing frequently-requested web pages. Squid has extensive access controls and makes a great server accelerator. It runs on most available operating systems, including Windows and is licensed under the GNU GPL.

It is a fast, scalable and extensible HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.0 compliant caching proxy server.Improve your response time, while reducing server load and bandwidth needs by caching and reusing frequently-requested web pages, images, and web ser

-
Open Source; Very Fast; High-performance; Extensible; ESI; Load Balancer; Caching
Statistics
GitHub Stars
2.7K
GitHub Stars
1.9K
GitHub Forks
594
GitHub Forks
842
Stacks
101
Stacks
452
Followers
205
Followers
57
Votes
17
Votes
0
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 4
    Easy to config
  • 2
    Cluster
  • 2
    Very Fast
  • 2
    Web application accelerator
  • 1
    ESI
No community feedback yet
Integrations
No integrations available
CentOS
CentOS
FreeBSD
FreeBSD
Alpine Linux
Alpine Linux
Fedora
Fedora
Debian
Debian
Mac OS X
Mac OS X

What are some alternatives to Squid, Apache Traffic Server?

Varnish

Varnish

Varnish Cache is a web application accelerator also known as a caching HTTP reverse proxy. You install it in front of any server that speaks HTTP and configure it to cache the contents. Varnish Cache is really, really fast. It typically speeds up delivery with a factor of 300 - 1000x, depending on your architecture.

Section

Section

Edge Compute Platform gives Dev and Ops engineers the access and control they need to run compute workloads on a distributed edge.

Nuster

Nuster

nuster is a high performance HTTP proxy cache server and RESTful NoSQL cache server based on HAProxy.

Related Comparisons

GitHub
Bitbucket

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

GitHub
Bitbucket

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Kubernetes
Rancher

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

gulp
Grunt

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Graphite
Kibana

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana