Cockpit vs localtunnel
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
localtunnel
Expose your localhost to the world for testing
| Feature | Cockpit | localtunnel |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | LGPL-2.1 | MIT |
| Language | JavaScript | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, binary | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 14,842 | ★ 22,440 |
| First released | 2014 | 2015 |
| 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 localtunnel if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 22.4k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is Cockpit or localtunnel better?
Neither is universally better. localtunnel has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Cockpit and localtunnel free and open-source?
Yes. Cockpit is licensed under LGPL-2.1 and localtunnel under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Cockpit and localtunnel with Docker?
Cockpit: check the project docs for container support. localtunnel: yes.