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. Gunicorn vs uWSGI

Gunicorn vs uWSGI

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Gunicorn
Gunicorn
Stacks1.3K
Followers908
Votes78
GitHub Stars10.3K
Forks1.8K
uWSGI
uWSGI
Stacks424
Followers311
Votes12
GitHub Stars3.5K
Forks699

Gunicorn vs uWSGI: What are the differences?

Gunicorn and uWSGI are both commonly used web servers for running Python web applications. While they have similar functionalities, there are some key differences between the two.

  1. Performance: Gunicorn is known for its simplicity and lightweight nature, which allows it to handle high loads efficiently. On the other hand, uWSGI is a more feature-rich server that provides better performance optimization options, such as caching and load balancing.

  2. Architecture: Gunicorn follows a pre-fork worker model, where multiple worker processes are created upfront. Each worker process serves one request at a time. In contrast, uWSGI follows a more flexible architecture, allowing workers to be created dynamically as needed. This makes uWSGI more suitable for applications with varying loads.

  3. Protocol Support: Gunicorn primarily supports the HTTP protocol and is commonly used for running Django and Flask applications. On the other hand, uWSGI supports a wide range of protocols, including HTTP, WebSockets, FastCGI, and more. This makes uWSGI a versatile choice for applications with diverse protocol requirements.

  4. Configuration: Gunicorn uses a simple configuration file format that is easy to understand and modify. However, uWSGI uses a more complex configuration format that provides a wide range of customization options. This makes uWSGI more suitable for advanced users who require finer control over server behavior.

  5. Python Integration: Both Gunicorn and uWSGI are designed to run Python web applications. However, uWSGI provides deeper integration with the Python ecosystem, allowing features like application preloading, lazy loading, and advanced process management. This makes uWSGI a better choice for complex Python applications.

  6. Community and Support: Gunicorn has been around for a longer time and has a wider user base, which means there is a wealth of community support and resources available. uWSGI, although less popular, is also actively maintained and has a dedicated community. However, the level of community support may differ between the two.

In summary, Gunicorn is a lightweight and simple web server suitable for basic Python web applications, while uWSGI provides more features, flexibility, and performance optimization options for complex applications with diverse protocol requirements.

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

Gunicorn
Gunicorn
uWSGI
uWSGI

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.

The uWSGI project aims at developing a full stack for building hosting services.

Statistics
GitHub Stars
10.3K
GitHub Stars
3.5K
GitHub Forks
1.8K
GitHub Forks
699
Stacks
1.3K
Stacks
424
Followers
908
Followers
311
Votes
78
Votes
12
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 34
    Python
  • 30
    Easy setup
  • 8
    Reliable
  • 3
    Light
  • 3
    Fast
Pros
  • 6
    Faster
  • 4
    Simple
  • 2
    Powerful
Integrations
No integrations available
Python
Python
Perl
Perl
Ruby
Ruby

What are some alternatives to Gunicorn, uWSGI?

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.

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.

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