frp vs websockify
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?
frp
Fast reverse proxy to expose local servers behind NAT
VS
websockify
WebSocket-to-TCP bridge for browser remote access
| Feature | frp | websockify |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | Apache-2.0 | LGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 32 MB |
| Deployment | binary, docker | bare-metal, source, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 108,622 | ★ 4,427 |
| First released | 2016 | 2010 |
| Replaces | ngrok | proprietary remote gateways |
Why pick each one
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 frp or websockify better?
Neither is universally better. frp has the larger community, while websockify is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are frp and websockify free and open-source?
Yes. frp is licensed under Apache-2.0 and websockify under LGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run frp and websockify with Docker?
frp: yes. websockify: check the project docs for container support.