Pangolin vs Cloudflare Zero Trust
Both Pangolin and Cloudflare Zero Trust enforce access at the resource level using zero-trust principles, with identity provider integration, per-resource policies, and browser-based application access. The core difference is where the control plane runs and whose infrastructure carries the traffic.
| Feature | Pangolin | Cloudflare Zero Trust |
|---|
| License | AGPL-3.0 / Fossorial Commercial License | Proprietary |
| Self-hosting | Yes | No |
| Traffic routing | Through your own infrastructure | Through Cloudflare's network |
| Pricing | Free (CE) / FCL free under $100K revenue | Free tier / per-seat paid |
| AI gateway | Yes | No |
Pangolin is the better choice for teams that need traffic to stay on their own infrastructure, want zero per-seat fees for the core access control, or need to proxy both cloud and self-hosted AI models through one identity-aware gateway. Cloudflare Zero Trust is worth considering when teams already use Cloudflare for DNS, CDN, and WAF and want those layers integrated with network access, or when a fully managed control plane with no infrastructure to maintain is a hard requirement.
Pangolin vs Twingate
Twingate provides zero-trust access to internal resources and replaces VPN without a broader SASE stack. Both products enforce per-resource access with NAT traversal that works without open inbound ports.
| Feature | Pangolin | Twingate |
|---|
| License | AGPL-3.0 / Fossorial Commercial License | Proprietary |
| Self-hosting | Yes | No |
| Browser proxy | Yes (HTTPS, VNC, RDP, SSH) | No |
| AI gateway | Yes | No |
| Pricing | Free (CE) / FCL free under $100K revenue | Free tier (5 users) / per-seat |
Pangolin is the better choice for teams that want a self-hosted control plane, need browser-based access to non-HTTP services like VNC and RDP, or want to centralize AI model access in the same platform. Twingate is a reasonable option for teams that want a simple, fully managed zero-trust access layer with minimal infrastructure management and do not need the broader SASE feature set.
Pangolin vs Teleport
Teleport focuses on privileged infrastructure access (SSH, Kubernetes, databases, and RDP) behind an identity-aware proxy with full session recording. Pangolin overlaps on PAM for SSH and browser-based access but covers a broader SASE surface.
| Feature | Pangolin | Teleport |
|---|
| License | AGPL-3.0 / Fossorial Commercial License | AGPL-3.0 (community) / proprietary (enterprise) |
| Self-hosting | Yes | Yes (community edition) |
| SSH access | Yes | Yes |
| Session recording | Audit logs | Full recording (enterprise) |
| AI gateway | Yes | No |
| Zero-trust VPN | Yes | No |
Teleport's enterprise edition includes detailed session recording, compliance reports, and mature enterprise IdP integrations that Pangolin's Enterprise Edition does not yet match in depth. For teams whose primary need is audited privileged access to servers and databases with full session recording, Teleport remains the stronger choice. Pangolin is a better fit when teams need the broader connectivity layer alongside privileged infrastructure access: a zero-trust VPN for client devices, NAT traversal for home and office networks, browser-based reverse proxy, and the AI gateway.