Here is an in-depth comparison of Traefik and FRP (Fast Reverse Proxy), two popular tools for reverse proxying, load balancing, and other network-related tasks. We will compare their main features, functions, and specific use in handling protocols like HTTP, HTTPS, SSH, and WebSockets.

General Comparison



  1. Dynamic Configuration: Traefik automatically and dynamically changes configurations based on the services it discovers. This is beneficial in microservices environments where services can scale up and down rapidly.
  2. HTTP and TCP Support: It supports both HTTP and TCP requests. This is advantageous because you can route both web traffic and other types of network traffic.
  3. Let’s Encrypt Integration: Traefik has built-in Let’s Encrypt support, making it easy to secure your connections with SSL.
  4. Comprehensive Support for Backends: Traefik supports various backends, including Docker, Kubernetes, Rancher, and more, allowing for broad usage across different environments.
  5. Metrics and Tracing: Traefik supports exporting metrics to popular monitoring systems like Prometheus and Datadog and distributed tracing to Zipkin, Jaeger, and others.


  1. Complex Configuration: Although it provides dynamic configuration, it cannot be easy to configure, especially for non-standard setups.
  2. Less Comprehensive Support for Non-HTTP Protocols: While Traefik supports non-HTTP protocols, its feature set is not as comprehensive.

FRP (Fast Reverse Proxy)


  1. Support for Various Protocols: FRP supports TCP, UDP, HTTP, HTTPS, and more. It provides a comprehensive feature set for these protocols, including load balancing, traffic multiplexing, and more.
  2. NAT and Firewall Traversal: FRP was designed with NAT and firewall traversal in mind, which makes it ideal for use in environments where services are located behind firewalls or NATs.
  3. Simple Configuration: FRP can be easier to configure than Traefik, especially for simple use cases.


  1. Lacks Dynamic Configuration: Unlike Traefik, FRP does not dynamically configure itself based on the services it discovers. This means that it might not be as suitable for rapidly scaling environments.
  2. No Built-In SSL Support: While it’s possible to configure FRP to use SSL, it does not have built-in support for automated SSL certificate generation as Traefik does with Let’s Encrypt.
  3. Limited Backend Support: FRP is less versatile than Traefik regarding backend support.

Reverse Proxy/Load Balancer Comparison


Traefik shines regarding HTTP/HTTPS load balancing due to its dynamic configuration, broad backend support, and built-in Let’s Encrypt SSL support. FRP can also be used for HTTP/HTTPS load balancing and even supports traffic multiplexing, but it doesn’t provide the same level of dynamic configuration and automatic SSL certificate generation.


FRP’s broad protocol support means it can handle SSH traffic effectively, including load balancing and traffic multiplexing. Traefik can route SSH traffic but doesn’t provide as comprehensive a feature set for non-HTTP protocols.


Both Traefik and FRP support WebSocket connections. Traefik’s dynamic configuration can benefit in a microservices environment where WebSocket services may scale rapidly. On the other hand, FRP could be used in environments where WebSocket services are located behind firewalls or NATs.

Use Cases

Cluster Environments

In cluster environments, such as those orchestrated by Kubernetes, Traefik is often the better choice due to its dynamic configuration, broad backend support, and built-in SSL support.


Regarding scaling, Traefik’s dynamic configuration makes it more suitable for rapidly scaling microservices environments.

Behind Firewalls/NAT

FRP is beneficial when services are located behind firewalls or NATs, as it was designed with NAT and firewall traversal in mind.

In conclusion, Traefik and FRP have their strengths and are suited to different use cases. You must consider your specific requirements and constraints to choose the most appropriate tool.