localtunnel 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?
localtunnel
Expose your localhost to the world for testing
VS
websockify
WebSocket-to-TCP bridge for browser remote access
| Feature | localtunnel | websockify |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | MIT | LGPL-3.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 32 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | bare-metal, source, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 22,440 | ★ 4,427 |
| First released | 2015 | 2010 |
| Replaces | ngrok | proprietary remote gateways |
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
Frequently asked questions
Is localtunnel or websockify better?
Neither is universally better. localtunnel has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are localtunnel and websockify free and open-source?
Yes. localtunnel is licensed under MIT and websockify under LGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run localtunnel and websockify with Docker?
localtunnel: yes. websockify: check the project docs for container support.