strongSwan vs Teleport
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?
strongSwan
Modern IPsec-based VPN implementation
VS
Teleport
Identity-aware access for infrastructure
| Feature | strongSwan | Teleport |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | GPL-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | C | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, binary | docker, kubernetes, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 2,934 | ★ 20,780 |
| First released | 2005 | 2016 |
| Replaces | Cisco AnyConnect | Cisco AnyConnect, AWS Systems Manager |
Why pick each one
Choose strongSwan if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- Active community (2.9k GitHub stars)
- Written in C
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Choose Teleport if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Mature project with 20.8k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is strongSwan or Teleport better?
Neither is universally better. Teleport has the larger community; both share a hard setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are strongSwan and Teleport free and open-source?
Yes. strongSwan is licensed under GPL-2.0 and Teleport under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run strongSwan and Teleport with Docker?
strongSwan: check the project docs for container support. Teleport: yes.