Teleport 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?
Teleport
Identity-aware access for infrastructure
VS
WG-Easy
The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
| Feature | Teleport | WG-Easy |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, binary | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 20,780 | ★ 26,595 |
| First released | 2016 | 2021 |
| Replaces | Cisco AnyConnect, AWS Systems Manager | OpenVPN Access Server |
Why pick each one
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 Teleport or WG-Easy better?
WG-Easy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Teleport if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Teleport and WG-Easy free and open-source?
Yes. Teleport 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 Teleport and WG-Easy with Docker?
Teleport: yes. WG-Easy: yes.