tunnelmole 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?
tunnelmole
Open-source tunnel to expose local servers to the internet
VS
WG-Easy
The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
| Feature | tunnelmole | WG-Easy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | TypeScript | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | binary, docker, source | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1,885 | ★ 26,595 |
| First released | 2021 | 2021 |
| Replaces | ngrok, localtunnel | OpenVPN Access Server |
Why pick each one
Choose tunnelmole if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (1.9k GitHub stars)
Frequently asked questions
Is tunnelmole 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 tunnelmole and WG-Easy free and open-source?
Yes. tunnelmole is licensed under MIT and WG-Easy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run tunnelmole and WG-Easy with Docker?
tunnelmole: yes. WG-Easy: yes.