CloudTTY 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?
CloudTTY
Cloud-native web terminal for Kubernetes
VS
WG-Easy
The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
| Feature | CloudTTY | WG-Easy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | kubernetes, helm | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 659 | ★ 26,595 |
| First released | 2022 | 2021 |
| Replaces | ttyd | OpenVPN Access Server |
Why pick each one
Choose CloudTTY if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Written in Go
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is CloudTTY or WG-Easy better?
WG-Easy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider CloudTTY if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are CloudTTY and WG-Easy free and open-source?
Yes. CloudTTY is licensed under Apache-2.0 and WG-Easy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run CloudTTY and WG-Easy with Docker?
CloudTTY: check the project docs for container support. WG-Easy: yes.