The main use case for OpenVPN Access Server is making internal web applications and using them within our organization. We have many internal apps, such as Re:dash for analytics, and internal peering and accessing different VM machines and internal servers.

I have hosted OpenVPN Access Server in my VM for one of those internal apps. From that VM, I have done the VPC peering to our different VPCs. And I have hosted, for example, Re:dash, an analytics tool for our internal company members. So we use VPN to whitelist them, and then they can internally use Re:dash for the analytics dashboard, querying, and connecting to the different databases and all.

The best features OpenVPN Access Server offers is whitelisting members in my company who have joined recently. It is really easy to use, and it is really easy to set up OpenVPN Access Server as an internal app.

When whitelisting members, I just add the name of the user. I go into User Permissions, add the name of the person I'm going to whitelist, and send them the credentials. They are able to log in and authenticate using an authenticator app and are easily able to onboard on OpenVPN Access Server and access internal apps.

It is easy to whitelist new apps that I'm going to host or when I've created a new VPC. I will do the VPC peering where I have hosted OpenVPN Access Server, and I can easily add the IP or CIDR of that particular new VPC or subnet which I'm going to use for my new app in the UI.

Before using OpenVPN Access Server, only developers mainly had access to databases. We can create read-only users for databases and internally give them access using OpenVPN Access Server. It has been really useful, as we don't have to give access to everyone, and just give access to OpenVPN Access Server, and they are able to access databases or internal websites.

The change has mainly led to the onboarding process being more smoothed out. It is really fast and saves developers' time. It saves my time as a DevOps engineer, setting up things for people.

The plan for OpenVPN Access Server could be improved. When adding new people, better plans for startups would be beneficial. I'm working in a startup and sometimes people think we should take the enterprise plan or not. If there was a dedicated plan for startups, it would be really helpful. For instance, providing store credit for OpenVPN Access Server through a startup program, similar to YC's program which gives credit to new startups.

UI-wise, OpenVPN Access Server is easy to manage, but the overall overview dashboard in the admin portal could be improved. Currently, you have to go through dropdowns to find where to add users or whitelist IPs. Creating an onboarding dashboard where an admin person can find these things easily would be beneficial.

I have been using OpenVPN Access Server for around two years.

OpenVPN Access Server has been stable since the last six months with no issues.

I have hosted OpenVPN Access Server in a VM. It does not utilize much memory or CPU on the VM. So far, I have been using around 40 users, and I did not need to scale it up. I think just scaling the VM would help in case it is needed.

I haven't used customer support from OpenVPN Access Server.

I haven't used any other solutions on the VPN side. OpenVPN Access Server was the first tool I have used for whitelisting people, but it did not give me any reason to move to any other product. It has been good.

I found some open-source documentation for setting up OpenVPN Access Server. It was really easy to set up initially. I got some networking issues from the VPC peering side, but it was resolved from open-source references.

I have utilized the access controls feature of OpenVPN Access Server, including an auto-login feature. For some developers who are heavily using OpenVPN Access Server, I allow an auto-login feature. For others, they still have to put the MFA code from the authenticator app.

I haven't seen exact numbers from the investment side, but OpenVPN Access Server has been really useful and saved a lot of time for developers.

The experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for OpenVPN Access Server is really good, not that expensive. I am easily able to add new users from the OpenVPN Access Server official website. I would suggest adding a startup plan for small startups would be really helpful.

Before choosing OpenVPN Access Server, I haven't evaluated any other options. Some of my colleagues recommended OpenVPN Access Server, and I went through it, and it has been really useful.

I would suggest for others looking into using OpenVPN Access Server, people find it difficult sometimes to self-host. Find the right documentation and go through it. Mostly it is all about networking. If your basics of networking are clear, you will be able to host it easily.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate OpenVPN Access Server a nine.

My main use case for OpenVPN Access Server is access to private subnets.

What I appreciate the most about OpenVPN Access Server is that it's very easy to set up.

OpenVPN Access Server has helped in meeting my organization's security requirements. I get to keep everything in the cloud private. People on the outside cannot see it, and this I use to connect.

There are ways OpenVPN Access Server could be improved. There are many small things, such as resetting MFA. There are tasks that require logging onto the server to run commands, which is not intuitive through the UI. If they had a one-click setup where you provide credentials instead of manually running commands, that would be beneficial. But it remains quite simple, which is why people appreciate it.

I assess the compatibility of OpenVPN Access Server with different client software and operating systems as quite easy. It's very good and simple to use. That's one of the reasons we use it. It's easy to set up the server side and the client side for users. It doesn't matter if it's Windows, Apple, Mac, or Linux - they're all very easy.

I have been using OpenVPN Access Server for seven to eight years.

OpenVPN Access Server scales with the growing needs of my organization. I have had some clients who expanded their usage, starting with three users, then increasing to 10, then to 20 users, each one in a different cloud with different licenses. It's not very easy to expand, and it would be beneficial if the process were simpler.

I had to use their customer service and technical support for OpenVPN Access Server. It was very good, and I would rate it an eight.

I have not really seen any ROI from OpenVPN Access Server. It's very hard to measure ROI as it's just a method of connection.

I had considered other solutions before choosing OpenVPN Access Server, such as AWS VPN and others, but OpenVPN Access Server is simply easier to use.

Regarding OpenVPN Access Server's advanced monitoring and reporting tools, I have not seen many features. They have a basic log, which is sufficient most of the time.

I found the setup and pricing of OpenVPN Access Server very easy since I've set it up many times. Even the first time wasn't particularly complicated.

I use the feature for hybrid deployment on OpenVPN Access Server in the cloud, not on-premises.

Overall, my experience with OpenVPN Access Server on a scale of one to 10 is a nine.

We use the solution to communicate with our servers located in the office.

OpenVPN Access Server is a simple and easy-to-use solution that I can use myself without anybody's help.

The solution should provide a faster connection, and its security could be improved. The solution’s stability could be improved.

I have been using OpenVPN Access Server for two to three years.

I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten for stability.

Around 50 users use the solution regularly in our organization.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight or nine out of ten.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is complex and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a seven or eight out of ten.

The solution’s deployment did not take much time.

The solution was deployed on the cloud in our organization. More than 100 people are needed for the solution's deployment and maintenance.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.