Pros of Netmaker

• Focuses on creating and managing mesh networks, offering more flexibility for complex network topologies
• Supports multiple platforms including Linux, Windows, macOS, and mobile devices
• Utilizes WireGuard for improved performance and security

Cons of Netmaker

• Relatively newer project with a smaller community compared to Pritunl
• May require more technical knowledge to set up and configure effectively
• Limited built-in user management features compared to Pritunl's more comprehensive approach

Code Comparison

Netmaker (Go):

func (network *Network) GetNetworkNodes() ([]models.Node, error) {
    var nodes []models.Node
    collection, err := database.FetchRecords(database.NODES_TABLE_NAME)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
    // ... (additional code)
}

Pritunl (Python):

def get_by_id(self, id, fields=None):
    return self.collection.find_one({
        '_id': id,
    }, fields)

def get_full(self, id):
    return self.get_by_id(id)

Both projects use different programming languages and have distinct approaches to network management. Netmaker focuses on mesh networks using WireGuard, while Pritunl provides a more traditional VPN solution with additional features for user management and access control.

Pros of WireGuard

• Lightweight and efficient protocol, offering better performance
• Simpler codebase, making it easier to audit and maintain
• Built-in kernel support in modern Linux distributions

Cons of WireGuard

• Limited built-in management features compared to Pritunl
• Less flexibility in terms of authentication methods
• Steeper learning curve for non-technical users

Code Comparison

WireGuard configuration example:

[Interface]
PrivateKey = <private_key>
Address = 10.0.0.1/24
ListenPort = 51820

[Peer]
PublicKey = <public_key>
AllowedIPs = 10.0.0.2/32

Pritunl configuration example:

{
    "name": "example_server",
    "type": "server",
    "network": "10.0.0.0/24",
    "port": 1194,
    "protocol": "udp",
    "cipher": "aes-256-cbc"
}

WireGuard focuses on simplicity and efficiency, while Pritunl offers more comprehensive management features. WireGuard's configuration is more straightforward, but Pritunl provides a more user-friendly interface for managing complex VPN setups. Both have their strengths, with WireGuard excelling in performance and simplicity, and Pritunl offering more advanced features and easier management for larger deployments.

Pros of Algo

• Focuses on simplicity and ease of use for non-technical users
• Emphasizes strong security practices and modern encryption protocols
• Supports multiple cloud providers out-of-the-box

Cons of Algo

• Limited to IPsec/IKEv2 and WireGuard protocols
• Less flexible for advanced configurations or customizations
• Smaller community and fewer enterprise-focused features

Code Comparison

Algo (setup.sh):

#!/usr/bin/env bash

set -e
set -u

SCRIPT_DIR="$( cd "$( dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}" )" && pwd )"

Pritunl (setup.py):

from setuptools import setup
import os
import sys
import copy
import shlex
import shutil
import fileinput

Both projects use different languages for their setup scripts, reflecting their distinct approaches. Algo's bash script focuses on simplicity, while Pritunl's Python setup allows for more complex configurations.

Pros of Streisand

• Supports multiple VPN protocols and services out of the box
• Automated setup process for various cloud providers
• Includes additional privacy-enhancing tools like Tor and Shadowsocks

Cons of Streisand

• Less actively maintained compared to Pritunl
• May require more technical knowledge to customize or troubleshoot
• Limited user management features for multi-user setups

Code Comparison

Streisand (Ansible playbook snippet):

- name: Install OpenVPN
  apt:
    name: openvpn
    state: present

- name: Generate OpenVPN configuration
  template:
    src: openvpn-server.conf.j2
    dest: /etc/openvpn/server.conf

Pritunl (Python snippet):

from pritunl import settings
from pritunl import logger

def setup_openvpn():
    settings.local.openvpn_server = True
    logger.info('OpenVPN server enabled', 'setup')

Both projects aim to simplify VPN deployment, but they take different approaches. Streisand uses Ansible for automation across multiple services, while Pritunl focuses on a more integrated, user-friendly solution specifically for OpenVPN. Streisand offers broader protocol support and additional privacy tools, making it suitable for users seeking a comprehensive privacy setup. Pritunl, on the other hand, provides a more polished, actively maintained solution with better user management features, making it ideal for organizations requiring a robust OpenVPN server with easier administration.

Pros of openvpn-install

• Simple, single-script installation process
• Lightweight and easy to customize
• Supports a wide range of Linux distributions

Cons of openvpn-install

• Limited user management features
• Lacks a graphical user interface
• Requires manual configuration for advanced setups

Code Comparison

openvpn-install:

#!/bin/bash
# OpenVPN installer for Debian, Ubuntu, and CentOS

# Function to install OpenVPN
install_openvpn() {
    # Installation steps
}

Pritunl:

from pritunl import app
from pritunl import settings

def run_server():
    app.run(debug=False, host=settings.conf.bind_addr, port=settings.conf.port)

if __name__ == '__main__':
    run_server()

The openvpn-install project is a single Bash script that automates the installation and configuration of OpenVPN on various Linux distributions. It's straightforward and easy to use but lacks advanced features.

Pritunl, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive VPN server solution written in Python. It offers a web-based interface, user management, and more advanced features, making it suitable for larger deployments and organizations requiring more control over their VPN infrastructure.

While openvpn-install is ideal for quick, simple setups, Pritunl provides a more robust and scalable solution for managing VPN servers and users.

Pros of docker-openvpn

• Containerized solution, offering easier deployment and isolation
• Lightweight and focused solely on OpenVPN functionality
• Highly customizable through environment variables and volume mounts

Cons of docker-openvpn

• Requires Docker knowledge and infrastructure
• Limited built-in user management features
• May require additional setup for advanced features like multi-factor authentication

Code Comparison

docker-openvpn:

docker run -v $PWD:/etc/openvpn --rm kylemanna/openvpn ovpn_genconfig -u udp://VPN.SERVERNAME.COM
docker run -v $PWD:/etc/openvpn --rm -it kylemanna/openvpn ovpn_initpki
docker run -v $PWD:/etc/openvpn -d -p 1194:1194/udp --cap-add=NET_ADMIN kylemanna/openvpn

Pritunl:

from pritunl import settings
from pritunl import app
from pritunl import setup
from pritunl import logger
from pritunl import __version__

setup.setup_all()
app.run_server()

The docker-openvpn code snippet shows the Docker commands to generate configs, initialize PKI, and run the OpenVPN server. The Pritunl code demonstrates the Python-based setup and server initialization process, highlighting the different approaches to VPN server management between the two projects.