SHSelfHostIndex

boringproxy vs WG-Easy

A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted remote access & vpn options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.

Not the right match-up?
BO boringproxy Simple self-hosted reverse proxy and tunnel manager VS WG WG-Easy The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
FeatureboringproxyWG-Easy
CategoryRemote Access & VPNRemote Access & VPN
LicenseMITAGPL-3.0
LanguageGoTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM64 MB128 MB
Deploymentbinary, dockerdocker
GitHub stars★ 1,381★ 26,595
First released20202021
ReplacesngrokOpenVPN Access Server

Why pick each one

Choose boringproxy if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Active community (1.4k GitHub stars)
boringproxy details

Choose WG-Easy if…

  • Extremely easy setup
  • Friendly UI
WG-Easy details

Frequently asked questions

Is boringproxy or WG-Easy better?

Neither is universally better. WG-Easy has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.

Are boringproxy and WG-Easy free and open-source?

Yes. boringproxy is licensed under MIT and WG-Easy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run boringproxy and WG-Easy with Docker?

boringproxy: yes. WG-Easy: yes.

Related comparisons