Zayo vs WireGuard
A detailed comparison to help you choose between Zayo and WireGuard.
Quick Verdict
3.3/5
Zayo
0 reviews
4.5/5
WireGuard
0 reviews
WireGuard is rated higher (4.5 vs 3.3). More than 240,000 route miles and 34 million fiber miles worldwide across North America, Europe and global reach (2026 figures) WireGuard is a modern open source VPN protocol, in the Linux kernel since 5.6 (March 2020). Around 4,000 lines of kernel code vs ~70,000-100,000 for OpenVPN (500,000+ with OpenSSL) and 400,000+ for IPsec stacks. Powers modern commercial VPN tunnels such as Mullvad's recommended protocol and NordVPN's NordLynx.
Zayo Fiber network and colocation carrier | WireGuard Modern VPN protocol — kernel-level performance | |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Rating | 3.3 (0 reviews) | 4.5 (0 reviews)✓ |
| Pricing model | paid | free |
| Starting price | Free tier available | Free |
| Best for | Enterprises, carriers and content operators buying dedicated transport capacity — dark fiber, 100G/400G wavelengths, private networks and colocation cross-connects — across North America and Western Europe | Developers and teams self-hosting private networks between servers or running their own remote-access VPN, and anyone enabling the fastest protocol option on a commercial VPN |
| Features | ||
| IPv6 | ✓ | |
| DDoS protection | ✓ | |
| Automated backups | ||
| Snapshots | ||
| Managed option | ||
| Bare metal | ||
| GPU available | ||
| S3-compatible | ||
| Hourly billing | ||
| Free tier | ✓ | |
| Tags | ||
| Tags | eu datacenterus datacenterprivate networking | free tieropen sourceself hostable |
| Visit Zayo → | Visit WireGuard → | |
Zayo
Pros
- + Tier-1 backbone: 240,000+ route miles, 11+ unique North American long-haul routes and genuine path diversity
- + Specific published SLAs (99.9% unprotected, 99.95% protected; 100% CloudLink guarantee) rather than marketing uptime claims
- + Real network-based DDoS mitigation (50 Tb+ capacity) with 24/7 NOC and SOC operations
- + Deep transport portfolio — dark fiber, 400G/800G wavelengths, Ethernet, IP transit, colocation — under one contract
Cons
- - No public pricing and no self-serve anything: quote-based, multi-year, engineer-installed
- - Procurement and install timelines are long; not viable for small or urgent deployments
- - APAC presence is subsea reach and partner interconnect, not owned metro fiber
- - Carrier-grade support experience is inconsistent in public enterprise forums; negotiate escalation terms
WireGuard
Pros
- + Free and open source — the protocol itself will never be a line item
- + Around 4,000 lines of kernel code: auditable by a single expert, minimal attack surface
- + Kernel-level performance on Linux; adopted as the underlying protocol by major commercial VPN providers
- + Dead-simple model: SSH-style key exchange, Cryptokey Routing, and automatic roaming between networks
- + Formal academic whitepaper defining the protocol and the reasoning behind each design choice
Cons
- - No vendor, no support contract, no SLA — availability is whatever your own infrastructure provides
- - Key distribution and configuration management are explicitly out of scope; multi-user setups need a control plane
- - Static key-to-IP peer table creates correlation risk on shared commercial gateways (why NordLynx adds double-NAT)
- - Unobfuscated UDP fingerprint — easily detected and blocked by restrictive networks
- - Requires operational comfort: patching, firewalling, and monitoring are all on you
Stay in the loop
Get weekly updates on the best new hosting and infrastructure providers, deals, and comparisons.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.