Cockpit vs frp
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?
Cockpit
Web-based graphical interface for Linux servers
VS
frp
Fast reverse proxy to expose local servers behind NAT
| Feature | Cockpit | frp |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | LGPL-2.1 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, binary | binary, docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 14,842 | ★ 108,622 |
| First released | 2014 | 2016 |
| Replaces | Webmin | ngrok |
Why pick each one
Choose Cockpit if…
- Released under the LGPL-2.1 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Mature project with 14.8k GitHub stars
- Written in JavaScript
Choose frp if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 108.6k GitHub stars
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is Cockpit or frp better?
Neither is universally better. frp has the larger community, while Cockpit is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Cockpit and frp free and open-source?
Yes. Cockpit is licensed under LGPL-2.1 and frp under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Cockpit and frp with Docker?
Cockpit: check the project docs for container support. frp: yes.