localtunnel vs SoftEther VPN
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
SoftEther VPN
Multi-protocol VPN server from the University of Tsukuba
| Feature | localtunnel | SoftEther VPN |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | C |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | bare-metal, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 22,440 | ★ 13,447 |
| First released | 2015 | 2014 |
| Replaces | ngrok | Cisco AnyConnect |
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 SoftEther VPN if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Mature project with 13.4k GitHub stars
- Written in C
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is localtunnel or SoftEther VPN better?
localtunnel is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider SoftEther VPN if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are localtunnel and SoftEther VPN free and open-source?
Yes. localtunnel is licensed under MIT and SoftEther VPN under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run localtunnel and SoftEther VPN with Docker?
localtunnel: yes. SoftEther VPN: check the project docs for container support.