Two battle-tested VPN protocols, each with different design goals. Here's a factual technical comparison so you can choose the right protocol for your infrastructure.
| Feature | OpenVPN | TunnelFleet Recommended |
|---|---|---|
| Codebase Size | ~70,000 lines | ~4,000 lines (WireGuard) |
| Cryptographic Primitives | Configurable (TLS) | Fixed, modern (WireGuard) |
| Kernel Integration | Userspace (tun device) | Kernel module / userspace |
| Connection Setup Speed | Slower (TLS handshake) | Fast (WireGuard) |
| Throughput | Good | Better (WireGuard) |
| CPU Usage | Higher | Lower (WireGuard) |
| Port / Protocol | TCP or UDP | UDP only (WireGuard) |
| Firewall Traversal | Easier (TCP 443) | Harder (UDP only) |
| Client Support | Very broad | Broad, growing (WireGuard) |
| Certificate-based Auth | Yes | No (WireGuard uses keys) |
| Auditability | Complex | Simple (WireGuard) |
| Maturity | Very mature (since 2001) | Modern (since 2019) |
WireGuard was designed with simplicity and performance as primary goals. The codebase is intentionally small (~4,000 lines), which reduces the attack surface and makes it easier to audit.
It uses a fixed set of modern cryptographic primitives: Curve25519 for key exchange, ChaCha20-Poly1305 for symmetric encryption, and BLAKE2s for hashing. There's no negotiation — you can't accidentally configure a weak cipher.
WireGuard is stateless by design. A peer that doesn't send or receive traffic becomes invisible on the network — no open ports, no handshake to intercept.
Limitations: WireGuard only supports UDP. In highly restrictive network environments that block all UDP, WireGuard won't work. It also lacks built-in certificate management; authentication is purely key-based.
OpenVPN has been production-proven since 2001. It runs over TLS and can use either TCP or UDP. The TCP mode on port 443 is nearly impossible to block, making it excellent for restricted network environments.
OpenVPN supports both certificate-based and username/password authentication, integrates with existing PKI infrastructure, and has a vast ecosystem of client software across every platform.
The configuration options are extensive. This flexibility means you can tune OpenVPN precisely for your needs — but it also means there are more ways to misconfigure it.
Limitations: Larger codebase with higher CPU usage. Configuration is more complex. TLS handshake is slower than WireGuard's handshake. Performance is generally lower than WireGuard at equivalent hardware.
In most benchmarks, yes. WireGuard is implemented in the kernel and uses ChaCha20 which is optimised for CPUs without AES hardware acceleration. Real-world differences depend on hardware, but WireGuard consistently shows lower CPU usage and higher throughput.
Both are considered secure when properly configured. WireGuard's smaller codebase and fixed cryptographic primitives reduce the risk of misconfiguration. OpenVPN's TLS-based approach is more flexible, which is both a strength and a risk.
WireGuard has official clients for Linux, macOS, Windows, iOS, and Android. It's built into the Linux kernel since 5.6. Support is broad but newer than OpenVPN's decades of client availability.
TunnelFleet currently supports WireGuard provisioning. OpenVPN support is on the roadmap. Check our documentation for the latest on supported protocols.
WireGuard's codebase is ~4,000 lines versus OpenVPN's ~70,000+ lines. Fewer lines means less code to audit and fewer potential vulnerabilities. However, OpenVPN has been extensively audited over 20+ years of production use.
TunnelFleet provisions WireGuard automatically. No SSH, no config files, no firewall rules to manage.