Francesco Oghabi

Podman vs Docker in 2026: When It Makes Sense to Switch

Podman vs Docker: real differences, not marketing. When Podman is better, when Docker remains the right choice, and how to migrate.

Docker practically invented containers as we know them. For years "container" and "Docker" were synonyms. Then alternatives arrived, and Podman is the one that gained the most traction, especially in enterprise and Red Hat environments.

The question I get asked often: "Should I switch to Podman?" The answer, as always, is "it depends". Let's see on what.

The Differences That Matter

There are real architectural differences between Docker and Podman. They're not just marketing.

Daemon vs Daemonless

Docker has a central daemon (dockerd) that runs as root and manages all containers. Every docker command talks to this daemon.

Podman has no daemon. Each container is a direct child process of the command that launched it. No central process always running.

Practical implications:

  • Podman: If the parent process dies, you can configure what happens to containers (continue or die with it)
  • Docker: If the daemon crashes, potentially all containers have problems
  • Podman: Less overhead when not using containers — no daemon in background
  • Docker: The daemon handles things like automatic restarts and container dependencies better

Root vs Rootless

Docker traditionally requires root privileges. You can configure it rootless, but it's not the default and requires additional setup.

Podman is rootless by design. Normal users can create and manage containers without elevated privileges. The container runs with UIDs mapped in user namespace.

Practical implications:

  • Security: A compromised container in Podman rootless doesn't have root access to the host
  • Multi-tenancy: Multiple users can use containers on the same system without interfering
  • Complications: Some things (bind mounts on root directories, ports below 1024) require workarounds in rootless mode

OCI vs Proprietary

Docker uses an image format that became OCI standard, but the daemon has many proprietary extensions.

Podman strictly follows OCI standards. Images and containers are fully compatible with any OCI runtime.

In practice, image compatibility is almost total. What changes are APIs and sockets — a docker-compose or tool that talks to the Docker socket might not work directly with Podman (though there are workarounds).

Compatibility with Docker

Podman is designed to be a drop-in replacement. The podman command accepts the same syntax as docker:

# Docker
docker run -d -p 8080:80 nginx

# Podman - identical
podman run -d -p 8080:80 nginx

You can also create an alias:

alias docker=podman

And most scripts will continue to work.

What Works the Same

  • Image builds (identical Dockerfiles)
  • Container runs
  • Volume management
  • Basic networking
  • Registry pull/push

What's Different

  • Docker Compose: Podman has podman-compose or uses podman pod with Kubernetes YAML files. Native Docker Compose doesn't work without hacks
  • Docker socket: Podman can emulate the Docker socket, but requires configuration
  • Docker Swarm: No Podman equivalent exists. For orchestration, Podman points to Kubernetes
  • Advanced builds: BuildKit (Docker's new builder) has features Podman doesn't have yet

Podman Compose vs Docker Compose

This is the main pain point for those who migrate.

Option 1: podman-compose

pip install podman-compose
podman-compose up -d

Works for simple compose files. For complex files with advanced networking, dependencies, or modern compose features, it may have issues.

Option 2: docker-compose with Podman socket

# Start Podman socket
systemctl --user start podman.socket

# Configure Docker Compose to use it
export DOCKER_HOST=unix://$XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/podman/podman.sock

# Use docker-compose normally
docker-compose up -d

This option has better compatibility, but introduces complexity.

Option 3: Convert to Kubernetes YAML

Podman can generate Kubernetes manifests from containers:

podman generate kube my-container > my-container.yaml

And then deploy with:

podman play kube my-container.yaml

If you're already using Kubernetes or planning to, this approach makes sense. Otherwise it's overhead.

Pods in Podman

Podman natively supports the Pod concept (hence the name). A pod is a group of containers that share network namespace.

# Create a pod
podman pod create --name my-pod -p 8080:80

# Add containers to the pod
podman run -d --pod my-pod nginx
podman run -d --pod my-pod php-fpm

Containers in the pod see each other on localhost, like in Kubernetes. It's a way to test multi-container architectures without compose.

When to Choose Podman

Scenarios where Podman makes sense:

Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS environment. Podman is the default. Docker requires extra installation and configuration. It's like swimming against the current.

Security is a priority. Rootless by default means reduced attack surface. For regulated or security-conscious environments, it's a real advantage.

Developers without root. If you work on a system where you don't have sudo and can't install Docker, Podman rootless lets you use containers anyway.

Minimal servers. No daemon always running. If you run containers occasionally, you have no overhead when they're not needed.

Kubernetes compatibility. Podman thinks in terms of pods, generates Kubernetes YAML, integrates naturally with the ecosystem.

When to Stay on Docker

Scenarios where Docker remains preferable:

Team already on Docker. The migration curve isn't zero. If the team is productive with Docker and there are no problems, changing has costs without clear benefits.

Complex Docker Compose. If you have sophisticated compose files with many dependencies, migration can be painful.

Tooling that assumes Docker. IDEs, CI/CD pipelines, various tools. Many assume Docker socket. Making them work with Podman is possible but requires work.

Docker Desktop. For development on Mac/Windows, Docker Desktop is still the smoothest experience. Podman has Podman Desktop, but it's less mature.

BuildKit. If you use advanced BuildKit features (cache mounting, secrets in build, etc.), not all are available in Podman.

Practical Migration

If you decide to migrate, here's a gradual approach.

Step 1: Install and Test

# Fedora/RHEL
sudo dnf install podman

# Ubuntu/Debian
sudo apt install podman

# macOS
brew install podman
podman machine init
podman machine start

Try your simplest containers:

podman run hello-world
podman build -t myapp .
podman run -p 8080:80 myapp

Step 2: Alias for Testing

alias docker=podman

Run your existing scripts. See what breaks.

Step 3: Solve Problems

Typical problems:

  • Docker socket not found → Enable Podman socket
  • Mount permissions → Add :Z for SELinux or use --userns=keep-id
  • Low ports → Use higher ports or configure sysctl net.ipv4.ip_unprivileged_port_start

Step 4: Migrate Compose

If you use compose, decide the approach (podman-compose, socket emulation, or Kubernetes YAML) and migrate gradually.

Step 5: CI/CD

Update pipelines. Most CIs support Podman directly or via socket emulation.

Performance

In my tests, performance is comparable. Podman is slightly faster in container startup (no daemon communication), Docker is slightly faster in operations that benefit from daemon caching.

In practice, the difference is measurable but rarely significant for real workloads. Don't choose based on performance unless you have extreme requirements.

My Setup

For context, here's what I use:

On Fedora (main workstation): Podman. It's the default, works well, I have no reason to install Docker.

On Ubuntu servers: Docker for legacy projects, Podman for new projects. They coexist without problems.

For CI/CD: Depends on the project. GitHub Actions has good support for both.

For local development with complex compose: Docker, because compatibility is better and I don't want to waste time debugging.

I'm not religious about it. I use what works best for the specific case.

Conclusion

Podman isn't "better" than Docker in absolute terms. It's different, with different tradeoffs.

If you're on the Red Hat ecosystem, if security is critical, if you want rootless containers without hassle, Podman is the natural choice.

If you have a working Docker setup, team used to Docker, tooling that assumes Docker, migrating for the sake of migrating doesn't make sense.

The positive thing is that compatibility is high. You can try both, see what works better for you, and decide without definitive commitments. Images are the same, commands are almost identical. The switch, if you decide to make it, isn't dramatic.

Choosing the right tool depends on context, not hype.