WireGuard vs OpenVPN: Real Performance Benchmarks and Practical Differences

The VPN protocol debate has intensified since WireGuard's stable release in 2020. While OpenVPN has been the gold standard for over two decades, WireGuard promises better performance with simpler code. But how do they really compare? We ran extensive benchmarks to find out.

Understanding VPN Protocols

Before diving into benchmarks, let's understand what these protocols actually do. A VPN protocol handles:

• Encryption - Securing your data so others can't read it
• Authentication - Verifying you're connecting to the right server
• Key exchange - Securely establishing encryption keys
• Tunneling - Wrapping your traffic to pass through the VPN

OpenVPN: The Established Standard

OpenVPN was first released in 2001 and has been extensively audited and battle-tested. It uses the OpenSSL library and supports a wide range of encryption algorithms.

OpenVPN Strengths:

• Extremely configurable
• Works on virtually any platform
• Can use TCP or UDP
• Supports plugins and scripts
• TCP mode can bypass some firewalls

OpenVPN Weaknesses:

• Large codebase (~100,000+ lines)
• Higher CPU usage
• Slower connection establishment
• More complex configuration

WireGuard: The Modern Challenger

WireGuard was designed from scratch with modern cryptographic principles. Its entire codebase is around 4,000 lines, making it easier to audit and maintain.

WireGuard Strengths:

• Minimal attack surface
• Built into Linux kernel
• Extremely fast
• Simple configuration
• Lower battery consumption on mobile

WireGuard Weaknesses:

• UDP only (can be blocked)
• Static IP addresses by default
• Newer, less battle-tested
• Limited algorithm choices

Our Benchmark Methodology

We conducted benchmarks using:

• Server: Vultr 2-core, 4GB RAM, Ubuntu 22.04
• Client: AMD Ryzen 5 5600X, 32GB RAM, Ubuntu 22.04
• Connection: 1 Gbps symmetric fiber
• Distance: ~50ms latency to server
• Tools: iperf3, ping, custom timing scripts

OpenVPN Configuration:

• UDP mode
• AES-256-GCM cipher
• SHA256 authentication
• 4096-bit RSA keys

WireGuard Configuration:

• Default settings (ChaCha20, Poly1305)
• 256-bit Curve25519 keys

Benchmark Results

Throughput Test (iperf3, 60 seconds)

Analysis: WireGuard achieved 94.5% of the raw connection speed, while OpenVPN managed only 43.7%. The CPU usage difference is dramatic—OpenVPN uses roughly 5-6x more CPU resources.

Latency Test (1000 pings)

Analysis: WireGuard adds minimal latency overhead (~1.2ms average), while OpenVPN adds ~8.3ms. More importantly, OpenVPN shows significantly higher jitter, which affects real-time applications like video calls and gaming.

Connection Establishment Time

Analysis: WireGuard's connection time is essentially instantaneous. OpenVPN's TLS handshake takes significantly longer, which is noticeable when switching networks.

Mobile Battery Impact (4 hours of use)

Analysis: WireGuard's battery impact is minimal, while OpenVPN consumes significantly more power due to its higher CPU usage and more frequent wake-ups.

Security Comparison

Cryptographic Choices

Both protocol suites are considered secure by cryptographers. WireGuard's choices are more modern but less flexible. OpenVPN can be configured with various algorithms, which can be both a strength (flexibility) and weakness (misconfiguration risk).

Code Audit Status

WireGuard: Has undergone formal verification of its cryptographic protocol. The small codebase makes complete audits feasible.

OpenVPN: Has been audited multiple times, including a 2017 audit by OSTIF. However, the large codebase makes complete audits more challenging.

Privacy Considerations

The WireGuard IP Issue

WireGuard stores the last seen IP address of connected peers in memory. This is a design requirement for the protocol to work efficiently. However, it raises privacy concerns for VPN providers.

Commercial VPN providers have addressed this in various ways:

• NordVPN (NordLynx): Uses a double NAT system
• Mullvad: Deletes IP associations every few minutes
• ProtonVPN: Implements their own wrapper around WireGuard

OpenVPN Privacy

OpenVPN doesn't store peer IPs by design, making it easier to implement a true no-logs policy. However, this doesn't matter if the provider logs at other levels.

Practical Recommendations

Use WireGuard When:

• Speed is a priority
• You're on mobile and battery life matters
• You frequently switch networks
• You're self-hosting your VPN
• You want simplicity

Use OpenVPN When:

• You're on a restrictive network (can use TCP 443)
• You need maximum compatibility
• Your VPN provider doesn't offer WireGuard
• You need advanced configuration options
• You're using older devices

The Verdict

For most users in 2024, WireGuard is the better choice. It's faster, lighter, and simpler while providing equivalent security. The performance benefits are substantial—our benchmarks show over 2x the throughput and significantly lower latency.

OpenVPN remains valuable in specific scenarios, particularly when you need TCP transport to bypass firewalls or when you're using legacy systems. Its flexibility is unmatched, and its long track record provides confidence for security-conscious users.

The good news is that most quality VPN providers now support both protocols, so you can choose based on your specific needs for each situation.

Future Outlook

WireGuard adoption is accelerating rapidly. Major VPN providers have implemented it, and Linux distributions include it by default. We expect WireGuard to become the dominant VPN protocol within the next few years, with OpenVPN remaining available for specialized use cases.