SoftEther VPN 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?
SoftEther VPN
Multi-protocol VPN server from the University of Tsukuba
VS
WG-Easy
The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
| Feature | SoftEther VPN | WG-Easy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | C | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, binary | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 13,447 | ★ 26,595 |
| First released | 2014 | 2021 |
| Replaces | Cisco AnyConnect | OpenVPN Access Server |
Why pick each one
Choose SoftEther VPN if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Mature project with 13.4k GitHub stars
- Written in C
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is SoftEther VPN or WG-Easy better?
WG-Easy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider SoftEther VPN if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are SoftEther VPN and WG-Easy free and open-source?
Yes. SoftEther VPN is licensed under Apache-2.0 and WG-Easy under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run SoftEther VPN and WG-Easy with Docker?
SoftEther VPN: check the project docs for container support. WG-Easy: yes.