SHSelfHostIndex

Shell In A Box 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?
SH Shell In A Box Web-based terminal emulator for remote shell access VS WG WG-Easy The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
FeatureShell In A BoxWG-Easy
CategoryRemote Access & VPNRemote Access & VPN
LicenseGPL-2.0AGPL-3.0
LanguageCTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM64 MB128 MB
Deploymentbare-metal, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 3,088★ 26,595
First released20092021
ReplacesPuTTYOpenVPN Access Server

Why pick each one

Choose Shell In A Box if…

  • Released under the GPL-2.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Active community (3.1k GitHub stars)
  • Written in C
Shell In A Box details

Choose WG-Easy if…

  • Extremely easy setup
  • Friendly UI
WG-Easy details

Frequently asked questions

Is Shell In A Box 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 Shell In A Box and WG-Easy free and open-source?

Yes. Shell In A Box is licensed under GPL-2.0 and WG-Easy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Shell In A Box and WG-Easy with Docker?

Shell In A Box: check the project docs for container support. WG-Easy: yes.

Related comparisons