localtunnel vs n2n
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?
| Feature | localtunnel | n2n |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | C |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | binary, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 22,440 | ★ 6,994 |
| First released | 2015 | 2008 |
| Replaces | ngrok | ZeroTier, Hamachi |
Why pick each one
Choose localtunnel if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 22.4k GitHub stars
Choose n2n if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Mature project with 7k GitHub stars
- Written in C
- Tiny footprint — runs in 64 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is localtunnel or n2n better?
localtunnel is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider n2n if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are localtunnel and n2n free and open-source?
Yes. localtunnel is licensed under MIT and n2n under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run localtunnel and n2n with Docker?
localtunnel: yes. n2n: check the project docs for container support.