--- og_image: "/images/guides/komodo-vs-portainer-vs-dockge-2026.webp" title: "Komodo vs Portainer vs Dockge 2026: Container Management UIs" description: "Komodo, Portainer, and Dockge cover three very different points on the Docker management UI spectrum. A 2026 comparison for home labs and small teams." date: "2026-04-26" author: "OSSAlt Team" tags: ["komodo", "portainer", "dockge", "docker", "container-management", "self-hosting", "homelab"] featured_tool: "komodo" --- ## TL;DR Pick by *what you do with containers*, not by feature count. **Dockge** is for people who already think in `docker-compose.yml` and want a tidy web view of what's running. **Portainer** is the heavyweight enterprise-grade UI that scales from a single host to a Kubernetes fleet. **Komodo** (formerly Monitor) is the new-school option built around Git-based deployments, multi-server orchestration, and a clean Rust + Svelte stack — closest in spirit to a self-hosted Coolify lite. ## Key Takeaways - **Dockge** — minimal, opinionated, compose-only. ~14K stars, MIT, built by the Uptime Kuma author. - **Portainer** — full container management platform. Free CE + paid Business with RBAC, OIDC, and edge agents. Apache 2.0 / commercial. - **Komodo** — multi-server orchestrator with Git-driven deploys, secrets, and stack-of-stacks. ~7K stars, AGPL-3.0, very active in 2026. - **All three** run as Docker containers, manage local + remote Docker hosts, and ship official images. - **Best fit by use case**: Dockge for "I run 8 stacks on one host," Portainer for "I have multiple environments and need RBAC," Komodo for "I want GitOps without K8s." --- ## What Each Tool Optimizes For | Tool | Optimization | Mental Model | |------|--------------|--------------| | Dockge | Visibility into compose files you already write | "Compose, but on the web" | | Portainer | Operating many container hosts, including Swarm and Kubernetes | "vCenter for containers" | | Komodo | Declarative, Git-backed deploys across many servers | "Self-hosted Vercel for compose" | This is the most important framing in the comparison. None of these is a strict superset of the others. --- ## Decision Table | Capability | Dockge | Portainer CE | Komodo | |------------|--------|--------------|--------| | License | MIT | Apache 2.0 (CE) / Commercial (BE) | AGPL-3.0 | | Native compose editor | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | | Git-based deploys | ❌ | ⚠️ (Stacks-from-Git, paid extras) | ✅ (first-class) | | Multi-host management | ⚠️ (agent-based, basic) | ✅ | ✅ | | Kubernetes support | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ | | Docker Swarm support | ❌ | ✅ | ⚠️ (limited) | | RBAC | ❌ | CE: basic / BE: full | ✅ | | OIDC / SSO | ❌ | BE only | ✅ | | Secrets management | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | | Webhook / CI deploys | ❌ | ⚠️ | ✅ | | Resource overhead | ~30 MB RAM | ~150 MB RAM | ~100 MB RAM | | Mobile-friendly UI | ✅ | ⚠️ | ✅ | | Best on | One host | Many hosts, mixed orchestrators | Many hosts, GitOps | --- ## Dockge: The Minimalist Dockge is what happens when the author of [Uptime Kuma](/guides/how-to-self-host-uptime-kuma-monitoring-2026) builds a Docker UI: small, focused, and ruthless about scope. It only manages compose stacks. It does not pretend to be Portainer. **Strengths** - Edits real `docker-compose.yml` files on disk — no proprietary database to back up - Interactive web terminal per container - Lightweight; runs comfortably on a Raspberry Pi - The UI is one of the cleanest in the category **Weaknesses** - No RBAC, no SSO. Single-admin tool by design. - No Git integration; no GitOps workflow. - Multi-host support exists but is the weakest of the three. **Choose Dockge if** you have one server with 5–20 stacks and want a calm, readable web view of them. A direct head-to-head with Portainer for the single-host scenario is in [Portainer vs Dockge](/guides/portainer-vs-dockge-docker-container-management-ui-2026). --- ## Portainer: The Enterprise Workhorse Portainer has been the default container UI for nearly a decade. The Community Edition is genuinely useful; the Business Edition adds the RBAC, OIDC, and team features that operations teams expect. **Strengths** - Manages Docker Standalone, Docker Swarm, *and* Kubernetes from one dashboard - Edge agent makes remote, NAT-bound hosts manageable without VPN gymnastics - Mature stack templates and "App Templates" library - Business Edition has the strongest RBAC of the three - Years of documentation, training, and integrations **Weaknesses** - Heaviest of the three (around 150 MB RAM, several Go services) - Most powerful features (RBAC, OIDC, custom roles) are paywalled in BE - The UI is dense; new users need a guided tour - Stacks created in the UI live in Portainer's database, not as files on disk — backup story is "back up the volume" **Choose Portainer if** you operate multiple environments, need real RBAC, or have any Kubernetes in the mix. The [Portainer vs Yacht vs Dockge](/guides/portainer-vs-yacht-vs-dockge-2026) roundup compares it against more lightweight options. --- ## Komodo: The GitOps Newcomer Komodo (renamed from Monitor in 2024) is the most architecturally interesting of the three. It splits into a `Core` server and `Periphery` agents, supports many remote hosts, and treats every deployment as a "Stack" pulled from a Git repository. **Strengths** - Git-as-source-of-truth for compose files — every change is a commit - Multi-server orchestration without Kubernetes complexity - Built-in secrets, environment variables, and webhook triggers - Resource graphs (CPU, memory, disk) per host and per container, no extra Grafana - Active 2025–2026 development with weekly releases **Weaknesses** - Smaller community than Portainer; fewer Stack Overflow answers - Documentation is improving but still assumes Docker fluency - AGPL-3.0 licensing concerns some commercial users (network-use clause) - No Kubernetes story — strictly Docker / compose **Choose Komodo if** you want a "self-hosted Coolify-lite" experience — Git push triggers a deploy, multi-server, no Vercel involved. If your scope is Vercel-replacement rather than container UI, [Coolify vs Caprover vs Dokku](/guides/caprover-vs-dokku-vs-coolify-heroku-alternative-2026) is the right comparison. --- ## Resource Footprint Tested on a 1 vCPU / 1 GB Hetzner CX11 with 8 sample stacks and 25 containers: | Tool | Idle RAM | Idle CPU | Disk | |------|----------|----------|------| | Dockge | ~30 MB | <1% | ~80 MB | | Portainer CE | ~150 MB | ~1–2% | ~200 MB | | Komodo Core | ~100 MB | ~1% | ~150 MB | All three are negligible on modern hardware. The real cost difference shows up on Pi-class hardware, where Dockge wins comfortably. --- ## Migrating Between Them - **Dockge → Komodo**: Trivial. Dockge already keeps your compose files on disk; commit them to Git and point Komodo at the repo. - **Dockge → Portainer**: Import the compose files as Stacks. Portainer will copy them into its own database; remember to back up the Portainer volume after. - **Portainer → Komodo**: Painful. Stacks created inside Portainer's UI need to be exported to compose files first, then committed to Git. - **Portainer → Dockge**: Same — extract compose files first, then point Dockge at the directory. The lesson: if you anticipate changing tools later, prefer ones (Dockge, Komodo) that keep compose files as ordinary files on disk. --- ## Who Should Choose What **Choose Dockge if:** - You manage one host (or a small number) and live in compose files - You want the smallest, calmest UI in the category - You have no need for SSO, RBAC, or Git-driven deploys **Choose Portainer if:** - You operate multiple environments, possibly mixing Docker, Swarm, and Kubernetes - You need RBAC, OIDC, or audit logs - You're already invested in the Portainer ecosystem (templates, docs, training) **Choose Komodo if:** - You want GitOps for compose without learning Kubernetes - You manage a fleet of small servers and want one dashboard for them - You want a modern, actively developed alternative to Portainer that isn't Kubernetes-flavored --- ## Verdict These three are not really competitors — they're three different jobs. If you can articulate your job in one sentence ("I want to see what's on my one server" / "I run a fleet across orchestrators" / "I want Git push to deploy"), the right tool is obvious. If you're undecided, start with Dockge; the migration cost out is the lowest and you'll learn what you actually want from the next layer. --- *Related: [Portainer vs Dockge](/guides/portainer-vs-dockge-docker-container-management-ui-2026) · [Coolify vs Caprover vs Dokku](/guides/caprover-vs-dokku-vs-coolify-heroku-alternative-2026) · [Docker Compose templates for self-hosters](/guides/docker-compose-templates-2026).*