- Tailscale is an IPv4 vpn. Zerotier is a virtual ethernet switch.
- Tailscale does not do ipv6, ipx, or any other protocol. Zerotier doe.
- Zerotier supports multiple networks. Tailscale only has 1 network per account. So it's not possible to be connected to WORK1, WORK2, HOME at the same time.
- Tailscale uses wireguard, whichs means it's probably going to be more compatible
- Tailscale forces SSO on certain domains (for example gmail). I really don't like being forced to use this. It's nice to have the option, but usually they require too much information.
- Tailscale uses login credentials to link machines, vs using machine keys in zerotier. I prefer zerotier's method, as I really don't want do the whole login flow all machines.
- Tailscale by default expires the sessions after X amount of time. Super annoying when you discover things are not working, because you didn't change a setting somewhere
- On mac, tailscale uses a VPN tunnel. Zerotier creates a virtual interface. I prefer zerotier's method.
- Because of this, tailscale is available via the appstore (mac). I like that. Both are available on the ios app store
- Both have some sort of SDN language / configuration.
- Tailscale is only an ACL type config, which is good enough for most
- Zerotier's is more extensive, and allows cool things such as redirecting packets to a different machine for inspection. Great for security monitoring and other stuff.
- Tailscale comes with a built-in dns, which is nice. Zerotier is working on that
- Zerotier has public networks. While I think it's a bad idea, it's pretty fun and dangerous
In terms of stability and performance, they're both stable and fast. Somehow zerotier does not get as much love as wireguard. Or nobody talks about it ;-)
Tailscale seems to forcus more on higher layer apps (filedrops, service discovery (just a portscan), simple firewall rules), while Zerotier seems to focus more on the technicalities. Tailscale is trying to look for which value adding features are popular amongst clients.
This makes sense, as tailscale simply uses wireguard, and zerotier is their own tech. Zerotier seems to be run by networking people. This is also the things that works against zerotier.. UI is clunky, the SDN language is difficult, no service discovery.
Imo zerotier's updates and development is very slow. Not sure why.. Maybe they lack a roadmap.
For zerotier to be easier to use, they could create a visual editor for the networks, by actually showing a switch, using cables on the ports, and different colors for different rules. This is more in line of what they do (global ethernet switch), instead of a VPN.
Also, I think zerotier should do more official integrations with routers / nas. Wireguard at a certain point will be integrated in all routers, because it's in the linux kernel.
$ ip addr show dev tailscale0
4: tailscale0: <POINTOPOINT,MULTICAST,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1280 qdisc fq_codel state UNKNOWN group default qlen 500
link/none
inet 100.67.184.57/32 scope global tailscale0
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fd7a:115c:a1e0:ab12:4843:cd96:6243:b839/128 scope global
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
- Tailscale is an IPv4 vpn. Zerotier is a virtual ethernet switch.
- Tailscale does not do ipv6, ipx, or any other protocol. Zerotier doe.
- Zerotier supports multiple networks. Tailscale only has 1 network per account. So it's not possible to be connected to WORK1, WORK2, HOME at the same time.
- Zerotier handles broadcast / multicast perfectly.
- Tailscale uses wireguard, whichs means it's probably going to be more compatible
- Tailscale forces SSO on certain domains (for example gmail). I really don't like being forced to use this. It's nice to have the option, but usually they require too much information.
- Tailscale uses login credentials to link machines, vs using machine keys in zerotier. I prefer zerotier's method, as I really don't want do the whole login flow all machines.
- Tailscale by default expires the sessions after X amount of time. Super annoying when you discover things are not working, because you didn't change a setting somewhere
- On mac, tailscale uses a VPN tunnel. Zerotier creates a virtual interface. I prefer zerotier's method.
- Because of this, tailscale is available via the appstore (mac). I like that. Both are available on the ios app store
- Both have some sort of SDN language / configuration.
- Tailscale is only an ACL type config, which is good enough for most
- Zerotier's is more extensive, and allows cool things such as redirecting packets to a different machine for inspection. Great for security monitoring and other stuff.
- Tailscale comes with a built-in dns, which is nice. Zerotier is working on that
- Zerotier has public networks. While I think it's a bad idea, it's pretty fun and dangerous
In terms of stability and performance, they're both stable and fast. Somehow zerotier does not get as much love as wireguard. Or nobody talks about it ;-)
Tailscale seems to forcus more on higher layer apps (filedrops, service discovery (just a portscan), simple firewall rules), while Zerotier seems to focus more on the technicalities. Tailscale is trying to look for which value adding features are popular amongst clients.
This makes sense, as tailscale simply uses wireguard, and zerotier is their own tech. Zerotier seems to be run by networking people. This is also the things that works against zerotier.. UI is clunky, the SDN language is difficult, no service discovery.
Imo zerotier's updates and development is very slow. Not sure why.. Maybe they lack a roadmap.
For zerotier to be easier to use, they could create a visual editor for the networks, by actually showing a switch, using cables on the ports, and different colors for different rules. This is more in line of what they do (global ethernet switch), instead of a VPN.
Also, I think zerotier should do more official integrations with routers / nas. Wireguard at a certain point will be integrated in all routers, because it's in the linux kernel.