localtunnel vs noVNC
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
noVNC
VNC client that runs entirely in the browser
| Feature | localtunnel | noVNC |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | MIT | MPL-2.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | bare-metal, docker, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 22,440 | ★ 13,911 |
| First released | 2015 | 2010 |
| Replaces | ngrok | RealVNC |
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 noVNC if…
- Released under the MPL-2.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 13.9k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is localtunnel or noVNC 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 noVNC free and open-source?
Yes. localtunnel is licensed under MIT and noVNC under MPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run localtunnel and noVNC with Docker?
localtunnel: yes. noVNC: yes.