Pros of wireguard-go

• Pure Go implementation, offering better cross-platform compatibility
• Directly maintained by the WireGuard project, ensuring up-to-date features and security
• Lightweight and focused solely on WireGuard protocol implementation

Cons of wireguard-go

• Lacks built-in user management and access control features
• Requires additional setup and configuration for a complete VPN solution
• No web interface for easy management and monitoring

Code Comparison

wg-access-server:

func (s *Server) Run(ctx context.Context) error {
    g, ctx := errgroup.WithContext(ctx)
    g.Go(func() error { return s.runAPIServer(ctx) })
    g.Go(func() error { return s.runWireGuard(ctx) })
    return g.Wait()
}

wireguard-go:

func (d *Device) Up() error {
    d.ipcMutex.Lock()
    defer d.ipcMutex.Unlock()
    d.isUp.Set(true)
    return d.BindUpdate()
}

The wg-access-server code shows a higher-level server implementation with API and WireGuard components, while wireguard-go focuses on low-level device operations. wg-access-server provides a more complete solution out of the box, whereas wireguard-go offers a foundation for building custom WireGuard-based applications.

Pros of algo

• More comprehensive security features, including IKEv2 and OpenVPN support
• Automated server provisioning for multiple cloud providers
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of algo

• More complex setup process
• Less user-friendly interface for non-technical users
• Limited customization options compared to wg-access-server

Code comparison

algo:

- name: Install WireGuard
  apt:
    name:
      - wireguard
      - wireguard-tools
    state: present

wg-access-server:

func (s *Server) Start() error {
    if err := s.configureWireGuard(); err != nil {
        return fmt.Errorf("failed to configure wireguard: %w", err)
    }
    return s.startHTTPServer()
}

The algo code snippet shows the use of Ansible for package installation, while wg-access-server uses Go for server configuration and management. This reflects the different approaches of the two projects, with algo focusing on automated deployment and wg-access-server on a more customizable, programmatic approach.

Pros of Streisand

• Supports multiple VPN protocols (OpenVPN, WireGuard, OpenConnect, etc.)
• Includes additional privacy-enhancing services (Tor, DNSCrypt, Shadowsocks)
• Automated setup process for various cloud providers

Cons of Streisand

• More complex setup and maintenance due to multiple services
• Potentially overwhelming for users who only need basic VPN functionality
• Less frequent updates and maintenance compared to wg-access-server

Code Comparison

wg-access-server:

func (s *Server) Start() error {
    s.wg.Add(2)
    go s.startHTTPServer()
    go s.startWireGuardServer()
    return nil
}

Streisand:

- name: Set up WireGuard
  include_role:
    name: wireguard
  when: wireguard_enabled

The code snippets highlight the different approaches:

• wg-access-server uses Go and focuses solely on WireGuard
• Streisand uses Ansible playbooks to set up multiple services

Both projects aim to simplify VPN setup, but wg-access-server is more focused and user-friendly for WireGuard, while Streisand offers a broader range of privacy tools at the cost of increased complexity.

Pros of Subspace

• More feature-rich with built-in DNS management and email notifications
• Offers a user-friendly web UI for easier management
• Supports multiple VPN protocols (WireGuard, OpenVPN, SOCKS5)

Cons of Subspace

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires more system resources due to additional features
• Less focused on WireGuard specifically, which may impact performance

Code Comparison

wg-access-server:

func (s *Server) CreateDevice(ctx context.Context, req *proto.CreateDeviceRequest) (*proto.Device, error) {
    device := &Device{
        Name:      req.Name,
        PublicKey: req.PublicKey,
    }
    // ... (device creation logic)
}

Subspace:

func (s *Server) CreateDevice(ctx context.Context, req *api.CreateDeviceRequest) (*api.Device, error) {
    device := &Device{
        Name:     req.Name,
        Type:     req.Type,
        Enabled:  req.Enabled,
        IPAddress: req.IPAddress,
    }
    // ... (device creation logic with additional fields)
}

The code comparison shows that Subspace's device creation includes more fields and options, reflecting its broader feature set compared to wg-access-server's more focused approach on WireGuard.

Pros of headscale

• Implements the full Tailscale control server protocol, offering better compatibility with Tailscale clients
• Supports multi-user environments with namespaces, allowing for more granular access control
• Provides a RESTful API for easier integration with other systems and automation

Cons of headscale

• Lacks a built-in web UI, which may make management more challenging for some users
• Has a steeper learning curve compared to wg-access-server due to its more complex feature set
• May require additional setup and configuration for advanced features

Code Comparison

headscale:

func (h *Headscale) ServeHTTP(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    h.router.ServeHTTP(w, r)
}

wg-access-server:

func (s *Server) ServeHTTP(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    s.router.ServeHTTP(w, r)
}

Both projects use similar HTTP server implementations, with headscale potentially offering more extensive routing options due to its broader feature set.

Pros of Netmaker

• Supports multiple network topologies (mesh, hub-and-spoke, etc.)
• Offers advanced features like NAT traversal and automatic key rotation
• Provides a user-friendly UI for network management

Cons of Netmaker

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires additional infrastructure (e.g., PostgreSQL database)
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

Netmaker (Go):

func (server *Server) CreateNetwork(network *models.Network) error {
    network.SetDefaults()
    if err := server.DB.Create(network).Error; err != nil {
        return err
    }
    return nil
}

wg-access-server (TypeScript):

async function createNetwork(network: Network): Promise<void> {
  await db.networks.create(network);
  await generateWireguardConfig(network);
}

Both projects use different languages and approaches, but they share similar concepts for network creation and management. Netmaker's code appears more Go-idiomatic, while wg-access-server uses TypeScript with async/await syntax.