Protocol comparison

Five protocols, five different histories.

Every VPN or proxy protocol was built to solve a specific problem, for a specific adversary, at a specific moment. Understanding that history is the fastest way to understand why each one behaves the way it does today.

There's no single "best" protocol — there's a best protocol for a given network, threat model, and device. The table below compares the five protocols MiTiVPN draws on, and each name links to a full history of how it came to exist.

Protocol Origin Encryption Speed DPI resistance Best for
VLESS 2020, Project X / Xray-core community Delegated to TLS Very fast, especially with XTLS Very high — looks like ordinary HTTPS Heavily filtered networks, low-overhead stealth
WireGuard 2016, Jason A. Donenfeld Fixed modern suite (ChaCha20, Curve25519) Fastest raw throughput Low unless wrapped — recognizable by default Raw speed on open or lightly filtered networks
OpenVPN 2001, James Yonan Configurable (OpenSSL / TLS) Moderate, slower in userspace Moderate — strong over TCP 443 Compatibility, audited stability, older devices
Shadowsocks 2012, independent developer "clowwindy" Built-in AEAD ciphers Fast, minimal overhead High — designed specifically against DPI Regions with active probing / firewall analysis
SOCKS5 1996, RFC 1928 (IETF) None natively Fast (thin relay, no encryption overhead) None on its own — needs an outer layer Per-application routing, foundation for other tools

How to think about the tradeoffs

Speed vs. stealth is the central tension. WireGuard is the fastest of the group because it does the least extra work — but that efficiency comes from a distinctive, easily fingerprinted packet structure. VLESS and Shadowsocks trade a small amount of raw throughput for traffic that's much harder to distinguish from ordinary encrypted web browsing.

Age isn't a weakness. OpenVPN and SOCKS5 are respectively 25 and 30 years old, and both are still in daily use — not because nothing better has been invented, but because their simplicity and long audit history make them dependable fallbacks when newer protocols are blocked or unavailable.

No protocol solves everything alone. This is why MiTiVPN, like most serious circumvention tools, doesn't pick just one. A WireGuard-based core provides speed; a VLESS/XTLS-inspired obfuscation layer makes the traffic boring to watch; OpenVPN remains available as a compatibility fallback; and a local SOCKS5 interface lets advanced users route individual apps selectively.

Further reading

Each protocol has its own dedicated page with a full history, technical breakdown, and comparison against its closest relative — start with whichever one your current setup already uses.

← Back to MiTiVPN home