localtunnel vs WebSSH
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
WebSSH
SSH client running in a web browser via WebSockets
| Feature | localtunnel | WebSSH |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | JavaScript | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 22,440 | ★ 5,135 |
| First released | 2015 | 2017 |
| Replaces | ngrok | PuTTY |
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 WebSSH if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 5.1k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is localtunnel or WebSSH 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 WebSSH free and open-source?
Yes. localtunnel is licensed under MIT and WebSSH under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run localtunnel and WebSSH with Docker?
localtunnel: yes. WebSSH: yes.