frp vs Shell In A Box
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
Shell In A Box
Web-based terminal emulator for remote shell access
| Feature | frp | Shell In A Box |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-2.0 |
| Language | Go | C |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | binary, docker | bare-metal, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 108,622 | ★ 3,088 |
| First released | 2016 | 2009 |
| Replaces | ngrok | PuTTY |
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
Choose Shell In A Box if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Active community (3.1k GitHub stars)
- Written in C
Frequently asked questions
Is frp or Shell In A Box better?
Neither is universally better. frp has the larger community, while Shell In A Box is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are frp and Shell In A Box free and open-source?
Yes. frp is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Shell In A Box under GPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run frp and Shell In A Box with Docker?
frp: yes. Shell In A Box: check the project docs for container support.