Enclave Networks vs strongSwan
A detailed comparison to help you choose between Enclave Networks and strongSwan.
Quick Verdict
3.5/5
Enclave Networks
0 reviews
3.7/5
strongSwan
0 reviews
strongSwan is rated higher (3.7 vs 3.5). Enclave Networks provides zero-trust connectivity for distributed teams, MSPs and infrastructure. It replaces traditional VPN with direct peer-to-peer tunnels that require no VPN server, no open firewall ports and no public IP exposure; connections fall back to Enclave-operated relays only when a direct path cannot be established. Modular open-source IPsec/IKE (IKEv2, RFC 7296) suite for site-to-site and remote-access VPNs, with X.509, smartcard/TPM, and EAP authentication. Runs on Linux, FreeBSD, macOS, Windows, and Android; GPLv2, free.
Enclave Networks Zero-trust private networking without VPN complexity | strongSwan Open-source IPsec VPN implementation for Linux and embedded systems | |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Rating | 3.5 (0 reviews) | 3.7 (0 reviews)✓ |
| Pricing model | freemium | free |
| Starting price | Free tier available | Free |
| Best for | MSPs and IT teams connecting multi-site, multi-cloud or hybrid estates that want closed firewalls and policy-driven zero trust connectivity, with per-machine licensing that suits device fleets. | Infrastructure teams building standards-compliant IPsec gateways, site-to-site tunnels, or certificate/EAP-based remote access on Linux, BSD, or embedded hardware, who are comfortable operating open-source security software. |
| Features | ||
| IPv6 | ✓ | |
| DDoS protection | ||
| Automated backups | ||
| Snapshots | ||
| Managed option | ||
| Bare metal | ||
| GPU available | ||
| S3-compatible | ||
| Hourly billing | ||
| Free tier | ||
| Tags | ||
| Tags | free tierapi access | free tieropen sourceself hostable |
| Visit Enclave Networks → | Visit strongSwan → | |
Enclave Networks
Pros
- + Per-enrolled-system pricing is simple and predictable ($8.00/mo list, $7.33/mo annual)
- + Strong cryptographic defaults: Ed25519 certificates, per-session Curve25519 ECDHE with forward secrecy, AES256-GCM tunnels
- + No VPN concentrator, no open firewall ports, no network reconfiguration — direct peer-to-peer tunnels
- + Multi-tenant portal and subnet gateways fit MSP and multi-site operations well
- + SSO/OIDC trust requirements (Entra ID, Okta, Google, Duo, JumpCloud) gate tunnel establishment
- + Generous honesty in the docs, including a frank explanation of relay fallbacks and their cost
Cons
- - Every container and every machine counts as a paid enrolled system — costs grow with fleet size
- - Free tier is non-commercial only (5 systems); no free commercial usage
- - Relayed fallback paths traverse Enclave-operated servers with higher latency and lower throughput
- - No published uptime SLA or third-party audit report we could find
- - Small vendor (Wales, small-company filings) with a thinner ecosystem than the consumer mesh brands
strongSwan
Pros
- + Complete IKEv2 (RFC 7296) implementation with IKEv1 legacy support, free under GPLv2
- + Deep authentication: X.509 attribute certificates, PKCS#11 smartcards, TPM 2.0, EAP/RADIUS
- + Multiplatform — Linux, FreeBSD, macOS, Windows (MinGW), and a native Android client
- + Two-node HA mode with state takeover, MOBIKE for roaming peers, full IPv6 support
- + Plugin architecture and distro packages make it embeddable and easy to deploy
Cons
- - Steep configuration learning curve — swanctl, IKE proposals, and IPsec policy are expert tooling
- - No vendor SLA; free community support, commercial support is optional and limited
- - Overkill for simple server-to-server encryption where WireGuard is easier and faster
- - Patching and PKI operations are entirely on you
- - No control plane, dashboard, or appliance — it is a component, not a product
Stay in the loop
Get weekly updates on the best new hosting and infrastructure providers, deals, and comparisons.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.