Both OpenVPN and WireGuard are excellent open-source VPNs you can run on a VPS in minutes. WireGuard is newer, faster and far simpler. OpenVPN is older, more flexible, and better at getting through restrictive networks. Here’s how they compare in practice, and which to pick.
At a glance
| WireGuard | OpenVPN | |
|---|---|---|
| First released | 2016 (in Linux kernel since 5.6, 2020) | 2001 |
| Code size | ~4,000 lines (kernel module) | ~100,000+ lines plus OpenSSL |
| Transport | UDP only | UDP or TCP |
| Crypto | Fixed modern suite (ChaCha20-Poly1305, Curve25519, BLAKE2s) | Configurable (TLS, AES-GCM, ChaCha20…) |
| Authentication | Public keys per peer | Certificates (PKI), optional username/password, 2FA plugins |
| Performance | Very high, low CPU | Good, higher CPU (userspace) |
| Connection setup | Near-instant, handles roaming | Slower handshake |
| Config | A few lines | Many options |
| Port on 443/TCP | No (UDP only) | Yes, blends in with HTTPS |
Speed and resource use
WireGuard runs in the kernel and uses a small, efficient protocol. On the same VPS it typically reaches noticeably higher throughput with less CPU than OpenVPN, and the difference grows on small instances with one or two vCPUs. Latency overhead is also lower, and mobile clients reconnect instantly when switching networks.
OpenVPN 2.6 with DCO (data channel offload, a kernel module) closes much of the gap, but it’s newer and not available everywhere yet.
Setup and maintenance
WireGuard: generate a key pair per device, add each peer’s public key and IP to the server, done. See WireGuard VPN server and WireGuard clients.
OpenVPN: you run a small certificate authority (Easy-RSA), issue a certificate per client, manage revocation lists, and tune many options. Install scripts and tools make it manageable. See OpenVPN server install.
Security design
Both are considered secure when kept up to date.
- WireGuard follows a “cryptographic versioning” approach: one modern set of primitives, no negotiation, and a tiny audited codebase. That reduces misconfiguration and attack surface. Unknown packets get no response, so the port looks closed to scanners.
- OpenVPN builds on TLS and OpenSSL. It’s very flexible, but that flexibility means more ways to configure it badly (weak ciphers, compression issues). Its long track record and mature PKI are strengths in enterprise environments.
Privacy note: WireGuard keeps peers’ last endpoint IPs in memory on the server, which matters for commercial VPN providers but rarely for a personal or team VPN.
Getting through restrictive networks
This is where OpenVPN shines:
- OpenVPN can run on TCP port 443, looking like HTTPS to simple firewalls. Hotel, corporate and school networks that block UDP or unusual ports often still allow it.
- WireGuard is UDP only. Networks that block UDP block it. You can run it on UDP 443 or 53 to improve the odds, or wrap it in other tools (udp2raw, wstunnel), with more complexity.
Under heavy censorship (deep packet inspection), both are detectable. Specialised obfuscating tools exist for those situations.
User management
| Need | Better fit |
|---|---|
| A few devices, technical users | WireGuard |
| Username/password logins, LDAP or RADIUS, per-user 2FA | OpenVPN (plugins), or WireGuard behind Tailscale/Headscale with SSO |
| Revoking access cleanly | Both (remove the peer / revoke the certificate) |
| Hundreds of users with a self-service portal | OpenVPN Access Server, or WireGuard-based platforms (Tailscale, Netbird, Headscale, Firezone) |
Which should you choose?
| Situation | Choose |
|---|---|
| Personal or team VPN on a VPS | WireGuard |
| Connecting servers and sites | WireGuard. See site-to-site |
| Mobile devices that roam a lot | WireGuard |
| Must work through networks that block UDP | OpenVPN over TCP 443 |
| Existing PKI, RADIUS or LDAP integration | OpenVPN |
| Many users, SSO, ACLs, minimal admin work | WireGuard-based mesh (Tailscale/Headscale) |
| Routers or appliances that only support one | Whichever they support |
You can also run both on the same VPS, WireGuard as the default and OpenVPN on TCP 443 as a fallback, as long as each has its own subnet and ports.
Hosting considerations
- Both need a VPS with a public IP and the ability to load kernel modules or use TUN devices. KVM VPSes, like all VPS.DO VPS plans, support both fully. See KVM vs OpenVZ vs LXC.
- Location decides latency for your users. See choosing a VPS location.
- Traffic through a full-tunnel VPN counts against the VPS’s bandwidth allowance.
Related: VPN vs proxy and IPsec with strongSwan.