SHSelfHostIndex

Cockpit 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?
CO Cockpit Web-based graphical interface for Linux servers VS WG WG-Easy The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
FeatureCockpitWG-Easy
CategoryRemote Access & VPNRemote Access & VPN
LicenseLGPL-2.1AGPL-3.0
LanguageJavaScriptTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM128 MB128 MB
Deploymentbare-metal, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 14,842★ 26,595
First released20142021
ReplacesWebminOpenVPN Access Server

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
Cockpit details

Choose WG-Easy if…

  • Extremely easy setup
  • Friendly UI
WG-Easy details

Frequently asked questions

Is Cockpit 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 Cockpit and WG-Easy free and open-source?

Yes. Cockpit is licensed under LGPL-2.1 and WG-Easy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Cockpit and WG-Easy with Docker?

Cockpit: check the project docs for container support. WG-Easy: yes.

Related comparisons