SHSelfHostIndex

Sshwifty 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?
SS Sshwifty Web-based SSH and Telnet client VS WG WG-Easy The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
FeatureSshwiftyWG-Easy
CategoryRemote Access & VPNRemote Access & VPN
LicenseAGPL-3.0AGPL-3.0
LanguageJavaScriptTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM128 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 3,112★ 26,595
First released20192021
ReplacesPuTTYOpenVPN Access Server

Why pick each one

Choose Sshwifty if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Active community (3.1k GitHub stars)
Sshwifty details

Choose WG-Easy if…

  • Extremely easy setup
  • Friendly UI
WG-Easy details

Frequently asked questions

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

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

Can I run Sshwifty and WG-Easy with Docker?

Sshwifty: yes. WG-Easy: yes.

Related comparisons