Choosing between Firezone and NetBird for zero-trust remote access? Here's how they compare on self-hosting, architecture, and setup complexity.
Quick Verdict
NetBird is the better choice if self-hosting matters to you. Both offer zero-trust access with WireGuard, policies, and SSO integration. The key difference: NetBird's entire stack — control plane, dashboard, signal server, and relay — can run on your infrastructure. Firezone's control plane is cloud-hosted at app.firezone.dev. If you want full ownership of your VPN infrastructure, NetBird wins by default.
Overview
Firezone is a zero-trust access platform with a split architecture. The admin portal and control plane are managed services (cloud-hosted). You self-host Gateways that route traffic to your resources. Firezone uses a resource-based model — you define resources (IPs, CIDRs, DNS names) and create policies controlling which users can access which resources.
NetBird is a WireGuard-based mesh VPN with zero-trust access controls. The entire stack is self-hostable: management server, dashboard, signal server, TURN relay, and STUN. NetBird creates a peer-to-peer mesh network where devices connect directly. Access control policies define which peers can communicate.
Both are WireGuard-based, policy-driven, and support identity provider integration. The difference is architectural philosophy: Firezone is a managed platform with self-hosted gateways; NetBird is a fully self-hostable mesh VPN.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Firezone | NetBird |
|---|---|---|
| Fully self-hostable | No (cloud control plane) | Yes |
| WireGuard-based | Yes | Yes |
| Zero-trust policies | Yes (resource-based) | Yes (peer-based) |
| SSO / Identity providers | Yes (Google, Okta, SAML, OIDC) | Yes (OIDC required) |
| Web dashboard | Cloud-hosted (app.firezone.dev) | Self-hosted |
| Mesh networking | No (gateway-based) | Yes (peer-to-peer mesh) |
| NAT traversal | Automatic (Firezone relays) | Automatic (self-hosted TURN) |
| Multi-site support | Yes (multiple Sites/Gateways) | Yes (routes and peers) |
| High availability | Yes (multi-gateway per Site) | Yes (multiple management servers) |
| DNS management | Yes (DNS resources) | Yes (private DNS zones) |
| Network routes | Yes (via Resources) | Yes (via Routes) |
| Client apps | Official (all platforms) | Official (all platforms) |
| Setup complexity | Low-medium | Medium-high |
| OIDC requirement | Optional (email/password works) | Required |
| Free tier (cloud) | Yes (up to 6 users) | Yes (up to 5 users) |
| License | Apache 2.0 | BSD-3-Clause |
Installation Complexity
Firezone is easier to get started with. Sign up at app.firezone.dev, create a Site, deploy a Gateway container with a token. The Gateway Docker Compose is minimal — one container with a few environment variables. Total setup: 15-20 minutes.
NetBird self-hosted is more involved. You need a domain, an OIDC identity provider (Keycloak, Authentik, Zitadel, or a cloud provider), and multiple services: management server, dashboard, signal server, TURN relay. The official setup script handles most of this, but expect 30-60 minutes for a full self-hosted deployment with OIDC configuration.
If you're comfortable with the cloud control plane, Firezone wins on ease of setup. If self-hosting everything is non-negotiable, NetBird's complexity is the price of full ownership.
Performance and Resource Usage
Both use WireGuard, so tunnel performance is identical — sub-millisecond latency overhead with near-native throughput.
Firezone Gateway: ~50-128 MB RAM. Lightweight — it's just a WireGuard gateway. Traffic flows peer-to-peer between clients and gateways. Falls back to Firezone's managed relay servers if direct connectivity fails.
NetBird (full stack): ~1-2 GB RAM for all services (management, dashboard, signal, TURN, Coturn, database). Individual clients use ~50 MB. Traffic flows peer-to-peer between devices. Falls back to your self-hosted TURN relay if needed.
Firezone's per-node footprint is smaller because the heavy lifting (management, database, relay) runs on their infrastructure. NetBird's total stack uses more resources because you're hosting everything.
Community and Support
| Metric | Firezone | NetBird |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | ~9,400 | ~12,000+ |
| License | Apache 2.0 | BSD-3-Clause |
| Update frequency | Active (weekly) | Active (weekly) |
| Documentation | Good (firezone.dev/kb) | Good (docs.netbird.io) |
| Commercial support | Yes (paid plans) | Yes (paid plans) |
| Community | Discourse forum | Slack + GitHub |
Both projects are well-maintained with active development. NetBird has a slightly larger open-source community; Firezone has stronger enterprise positioning.
Use Cases
Choose Firezone If...
- You want the simplest possible zero-trust setup
- Cloud-hosted control plane is acceptable
- You don't want to manage an OIDC provider
- Multi-site gateway management is important
- You prefer a managed service with self-hosted data plane
- Your threat model doesn't require full infrastructure ownership
Choose NetBird If...
- Full self-hosting is a hard requirement
- You want mesh networking (devices talk directly to each other)
- You already run an OIDC provider (Authentik, Keycloak)
- You want to own the relay infrastructure too
- You need private DNS zones for your mesh
- Your organization requires that no third-party sees any metadata
Final Verdict
The choice comes down to one question: does the control plane need to be on your infrastructure?
If yes, NetBird is your only option among modern zero-trust VPN platforms. It's fully self-hostable, well-maintained, and feature-rich. The trade-off is higher setup complexity and more infrastructure to manage.
If no, Firezone is a compelling choice — simpler setup, less infrastructure to maintain, and the same zero-trust policy model. You trust Firezone with your configuration metadata, but the actual traffic flows peer-to-peer and never touches their servers (except relay fallback).
For home lab users: if you already have Authentik or Keycloak running, NetBird integrates naturally and gives you a fully private VPN. If you don't want to run an identity provider, Firezone gets you to zero-trust access faster.
For a simpler alternative to both: Headscale + Tailscale clients gives you a self-hosted mesh VPN without the zero-trust policy complexity.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I migrate from Firezone to NetBird?
There's no automated migration. Both use their own WireGuard key management and client protocols. You'd deploy NetBird alongside Firezone, reconfigure clients one at a time, then decommission Firezone.
Does NetBird work without self-hosting?
Yes. NetBird offers a cloud-hosted version at netbird.io with a free tier (up to 5 users). If you're not ready to self-host, you can start with their cloud service and migrate to self-hosted later.
Which has better access control policies?
Both support group-based policies. Firezone uses a resource model (users access Resources). NetBird uses a peer model (peers in Group A can talk to peers in Group B). Firezone's model is more intuitive for controlling access to specific services; NetBird's model is more flexible for mesh networking scenarios.
What happens to Firezone tunnels if their cloud goes down?
Existing tunnels keep working — the data plane is peer-to-peer. New connections and policy changes won't propagate until the control plane recovers. NetBird doesn't have this risk because you control all components.
Top comments (0)