websockify 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?
websockify
WebSocket-to-TCP bridge for browser remote access
VS
WG-Easy
The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
| Feature | websockify | WG-Easy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | LGPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Python | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 32 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source, binary | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 4,427 | ★ 26,595 |
| First released | 2010 | 2021 |
| Replaces | proprietary remote gateways | OpenVPN Access Server |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is websockify or WG-Easy better?
Neither is universally better. WG-Easy has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are websockify and WG-Easy free and open-source?
Yes. websockify is licensed under LGPL-3.0 and WG-Easy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run websockify and WG-Easy with Docker?
websockify: check the project docs for container support. WG-Easy: yes.