---
layout: page
title: rDNS vs Unbound, BIND, PowerDNS, CoreDNS, Pi-hole
heading: rDNS compared.
eyebrow: Compare
lede: How rDNS stacks up against the established DNS servers, honestly. Where it leads, and where it doesn't.
description: rDNS vs Unbound, BIND, PowerDNS, CoreDNS, and Pi-hole. Honest side-by-side comparison of language, performance, features, and license.
jsonld: faqpage
---
<section class="section">
<div class="container">
<div class="compare-table-wrap">
<table class="compare-table">
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Feature</th>
{% for col in site.data.compare.columns %}<th>{{ col }}</th>{% endfor %}
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
{% for row in site.data.compare.rows %}
<tr>
<th>{{ row.feature }}</th>
{% for v in row.values %}
<td>{% if v == "yes" %}<span class="yes">✓</span>{% elsif v == "no" %}<span class="no">—</span>{% else %}{{ v }}{% endif %}</td>
{% endfor %}
</tr>
{% endfor %}
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</section>
<section class="section">
<div class="container">
<h2>vs Unbound</h2>
<p>Unbound is the gold standard for recursive resolution. It's mature, fast, and battle-tested. rDNS measures 1.3-1.5× faster on cached query throughput in identical hardware tests, and adds an authoritative mode that Unbound doesn't have.</p>
<p><strong>Choose Unbound</strong> if you want the most-deployed recursive resolver on the internet and your team already operates it.</p>
<p><strong>Choose rDNS</strong> if you want higher performance per core, a memory-safe codebase, and the option to serve authoritative zones too.</p>
<h2>vs BIND</h2>
<p>BIND is the universal DNS server — it does everything. It also has decades of CVEs and a code surface to match.</p>
<p><strong>Choose BIND</strong> if you need a niche feature (split-horizon ACLs, dynamic updates, specific RFC corner) that rDNS hasn't implemented.</p>
<p><strong>Choose rDNS</strong> if you want 90% of BIND's real-world functionality in a far smaller, memory-safe binary.</p>
<h2>vs PowerDNS</h2>
<p>PowerDNS is a strong authoritative server with database backends and a separate Recursor product. rDNS unifies recursive and authoritative in one binary and is memory-safe.</p>
<p><strong>Choose PowerDNS</strong> if you're invested in their Lua scripting model or specific database backends rDNS doesn't yet support.</p>
<p><strong>Choose rDNS</strong> if you want one binary, one config file, and Rust safety guarantees.</p>
<h2>vs CoreDNS</h2>
<p>CoreDNS is Go and plugin-driven, popular in Kubernetes. It's not designed as a high-throughput recursive resolver for general internet workloads — its strength is the plugin model.</p>
<p><strong>Choose CoreDNS</strong> for cluster DNS / service discovery.</p>
<p><strong>Choose rDNS</strong> for performance-critical recursive or authoritative serving at the network edge.</p>
<h2>vs Pi-hole</h2>
<p>Pi-hole is a DNS-based ad blocker. Under the hood it uses dnsmasq or Unbound; the UI is the product. rDNS implements RPZ-based blocking and DoT but doesn't ship a web admin interface.</p>
<p><strong>Choose Pi-hole</strong> if you want a turnkey home-network blocker with a friendly dashboard.</p>
<p><strong>Choose rDNS</strong> if you want a real DNS server doing blocking via standards-compliant RPZ files, scriptable from your config-management tool.</p>
</div>
</section>
{% include cta.html %}