n2n vs WG-Easy
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 | n2n | WG-Easy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | GPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | C | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | binary, source | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 6,994 | ★ 26,595 |
| First released | 2008 | 2021 |
| Replaces | ZeroTier, Hamachi | OpenVPN Access Server |
Why pick each one
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 n2n or WG-Easy better?
WG-Easy 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 n2n and WG-Easy free and open-source?
Yes. n2n is licensed under GPL-3.0 and WG-Easy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run n2n and WG-Easy with Docker?
n2n: check the project docs for container support. WG-Easy: yes.