Portainer vs Dockge

Portainer — strengths

• Manages Docker, Swarm, and Kubernetes from one UI
• Multi-host support via lightweight edge agents — manage 20 servers from one Portainer instance
• Full image, network, and volume lifecycle management
• Private registry integration out of the box
• Established project with years of production use and detailed documentation

Portainer — weaknesses

• Advanced RBAC and audit logs are Business Edition (paid)
• Heavier footprint, more moving parts with agents
• Compose stacks are managed as Portainer state, not plain files on disk

Dockge — strengths

• Purpose-built for docker-compose stacks — start, stop, restart, edit, and diff compose files from a clean UI
• Compose files stay as real files on disk (at a path you choose) — easy to source-control with git
• Minimal footprint, MIT licensed, extremely simple to install and maintain
• Real-time log streaming and interactive container terminal included
• Created by the same developer as Uptime Kuma — consistent, opinionated, quality UI

Dockge — weaknesses

• Single-host only — no multi-host or clustering support
• No Kubernetes or Swarm
• Minimal image and registry management

When Portainer fits

• Homelab with a NAS, a Pi, and a VPS each running Docker: Portainer Agent on each host plus one Portainer CE instance gives a single pane of glass across all three. Dockge cannot span hosts.
• Small team deploying to a two-node Swarm cluster for high availability: Portainer supports Swarm stacks and service scaling natively. Dockge has no Swarm awareness.
• Organisation that needs RBAC so developers can see their app's logs but cannot stop the database container: Portainer Business Edition's team and role model handles this; Dockge has no access control.

When Dockge fits

• Single homelab server running 15 compose stacks: Dockge shows each stack as a card, lets you edit the compose YAML in-browser, and tails logs per service. No agents, no complexity.
• Developer who keeps all compose files in a git repo and wants a web UI to start/stop them without SSH: Dockge watches a directory of compose files, so a git pull followed by a browser click is the full deploy workflow.
• Self-hoster who wants to onboard a non-technical household member to manage a couple of services: Dockge's minimal, clean interface is far less intimidating than Portainer's full-featured layout.

Portainer gotchas

• The CE / Business split means some features (granular RBAC, registry management at scale, audit logs) are paywalled — read the edition comparison before assuming CE covers your use case
• Portainer itself is a security-sensitive service; its socket access to Docker is equivalent to root on the host — restrict access to the Portainer UI carefully
• Stacks UI is good but manages compose as Portainer state, not plain files on disk — if you want source-controlled compose files checked into git, the Dockge model is better
• Upgrades require care: the Portainer data volume holds all agent config, team settings, and stack state — always back it up before upgrading

Dockge gotchas

• No multi-host support — if you add a second Docker machine, you need a second Dockge instance with no cross-host view
• No Swarm, no Kubernetes — purely single-host Docker with compose
• Image management is minimal — no pull-by-tag, no registry browser, no prune controls
• Younger project; some edge cases (compose profiles, complex override files) may have rough patches

Choose Portainer when

Pick Portainer if you manage more than one Docker host, use Swarm or Kubernetes, need private registry integration, or want RBAC for a team. It is also the right pick if you need an established, production-grade tool with commercial support available.

Choose Dockge when

Pick Dockge if you run a single Docker host, your workflow is compose-file-first, and you want a clean, lightweight UI that keeps compose files as real files on disk. It is the right pick for homelabbers who want simplicity over breadth.

Migration

Both read docker-compose files, so migrating from one to the other is mostly a UI change, not a data migration. In Portainer, export your stacks as compose YAML; place those files in Dockge's watched directory (or vice versa, import them as Portainer stacks). Running containers are unaffected by switching the management UI — they continue running as Docker processes. The main adjustment is mental: Portainer keeps stack state in its own database, while Dockge trusts the files on disk as the source of truth.

Frequently asked questions

Can I run both on the same host?

Yes — they bind to different ports and do not conflict. Some users run Portainer for multi-host management and Dockge on the main host for compose editing convenience.

Is Portainer Community Edition really free?

Yes, for most homelab and small-team use. RBAC beyond basic admin/user, audit logs, and some registry features are Business Edition. Read the edition comparison page for the current feature split.

Does Dockge replace Portainer for Kubernetes?

No. Dockge has no Kubernetes support at all. If you run k3s, k8s, or any other orchestrator alongside Docker, Portainer CE covers both; Dockge cannot.

Can I source-control my stacks with Dockge?

Yes — Dockge stores compose files as plain YAML files at a directory path you choose. Put that directory in a git repo, commit changes there, and Dockge picks them up. Portainer's stacks can be linked to a git repo too, but it is a separate UI workflow.

Which is safer to expose to the internet?

Neither should be exposed directly. Both require access to the Docker socket, which is equivalent to root. Put both behind a reverse proxy with auth (HTTP basic, Authelia, Cloudflare Access) and restrict access to trusted IPs or a VPN.

What about Yacht, Lazydocker, or other alternatives?

Yacht is another web UI in the same space as Dockge but less actively maintained. Lazydocker is a terminal UI (no web) that is excellent for quick inspection. Dockge and Portainer CE have the most active development among the open self-hosted web UIs.