GOST 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?
GOST
Versatile secure tunneling and proxy toolkit
VS
WG-Easy
The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
| Feature | GOST | WG-Easy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | binary, docker | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7,255 | ★ 26,595 |
| First released | 2017 | 2021 |
| Replaces | Chisel, ngrok | OpenVPN Access Server |
Why pick each one
Choose GOST if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 7.3k GitHub stars
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is GOST or WG-Easy better?
WG-Easy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider GOST if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are GOST and WG-Easy free and open-source?
Yes. GOST is licensed under MIT and WG-Easy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run GOST and WG-Easy with Docker?
GOST: yes. WG-Easy: yes.