noVNC vs TigerVNC
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?
noVNC
VNC client that runs entirely in the browser
VS
TigerVNC
High-performance, platform-neutral VNC implementation
| Feature | noVNC | TigerVNC |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | MPL-2.0 | GPL-2.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | C++ |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, docker, source | bare-metal, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 13,911 | ★ 7,368 |
| First released | 2010 | 2009 |
| Replaces | RealVNC | RealVNC |
Why pick each one
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
Choose TigerVNC if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- Mature project with 7.4k GitHub stars
- Written in C++
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is noVNC or TigerVNC better?
noVNC is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider TigerVNC if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are noVNC and TigerVNC free and open-source?
Yes. noVNC is licensed under MPL-2.0 and TigerVNC under GPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run noVNC and TigerVNC with Docker?
noVNC: yes. TigerVNC: check the project docs for container support.