Eternal Terminal 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?
Eternal Terminal
Remote terminal that survives network changes
VS
WG-Easy
The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
| Feature | Eternal Terminal | WG-Easy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | C++ | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, binary | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,839 | ★ 26,595 |
| First released | 2016 | 2021 |
| Replaces | Mosh | OpenVPN Access Server |
Why pick each one
Choose Eternal Terminal if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Active community (3.8k GitHub stars)
- Written in C++
Frequently asked questions
Is Eternal Terminal 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 Eternal Terminal and WG-Easy free and open-source?
Yes. Eternal Terminal 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 Eternal Terminal and WG-Easy with Docker?
Eternal Terminal: check the project docs for container support. WG-Easy: yes.