WG-Easy vs wstunnel
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?
WG-Easy
The easiest way to run WireGuard VPN with a web UI
VS
wstunnel
Tunnel TCP and UDP traffic over WebSocket or HTTP2
| Feature | WG-Easy | wstunnel |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Remote Access & VPN | Remote Access & VPN |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | BSD-3-Clause |
| Language | TypeScript | Rust |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker | binary, docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 26,595 | ★ 6,948 |
| First released | 2021 | 2015 |
| Replaces | OpenVPN Access Server | Chisel |
Why pick each one
Choose wstunnel if…
- Released under the BSD-3-Clause license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 6.9k GitHub stars
- Written in Rust
Frequently asked questions
Is WG-Easy or wstunnel better?
WG-Easy is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider wstunnel if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are WG-Easy and wstunnel free and open-source?
Yes. WG-Easy is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and wstunnel under BSD-3-Clause. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run WG-Easy and wstunnel with Docker?
WG-Easy: yes. wstunnel: yes.