SHSelfHostIndex

noVNC 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?
NO noVNC VNC client that runs entirely in the browser VS WG WG-Easy The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
FeaturenoVNCWG-Easy
CategoryRemote Access & VPNRemote Access & VPN
LicenseMPL-2.0AGPL-3.0
LanguageJavaScriptTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM64 MB128 MB
Deploymentbare-metal, docker, sourcedocker
GitHub stars★ 13,911★ 26,595
First released20102021
ReplacesRealVNCOpenVPN Access Server

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
noVNC details

Choose WG-Easy if…

  • Extremely easy setup
  • Friendly UI
WG-Easy details

Frequently asked questions

Is noVNC 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 noVNC and WG-Easy free and open-source?

Yes. noVNC is licensed under MPL-2.0 and WG-Easy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run noVNC and WG-Easy with Docker?

noVNC: yes. WG-Easy: yes.

Related comparisons