Side by side
Obfuscator-LLVM vs Tigress
Both stand on code obfuscation software. Which one you can start free with, which one lets you read the code, and what each costs once you pay.
Free plan Linux
Obfuscator-LLVM offers several compile-time obfuscation passes across a range of LLVM languages and targets. Its maintainers describe it as an advanced prototype, with limited protection and a need for more testing before production use.
Visit Obfuscator-LLVM Free plan AndroidLinuxMac+1
Tigress offers configurable C obfuscation across a broad set of listed targets, with nonprofit use free. Account for its single-file input requirement, potential performance impact, and licensing needs before deployment.
Visit TigressThe facts
| Obfuscator-LLVM | Tigress | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | Not published | Not published |
| Runs on | Linux | Android, Linux, Mac, Windows |
| Lowest paid plan | Free or on request | Free or on request |
| Plans published | 1 | 2 |
| Maker | Not published | Not published |
| Website | github.com | tigress.wtf |
| On code obfuscation software | #11 of 34 | #7 of 34 |
Obfuscator-LLVM: what it does well
- Free and open source.
- Includes three listed obfuscation passes.
- Works with LLVM-supported languages.
- Supports numerous listed compilation targets.
- Can be integrated through Clang.
What to know first
- Build requires CMake and make.
- Obfuscation can slow and enlarge code.
- Constants and buffers are not scrambled.
- No code tamper-proofing is implemented.
Tigress: what it does well
- One C input can yield varied outputs
- Includes control-flow and anti-analysis transformations
- Lists Linux, Darwin, Android, Windows, and WebAssembly targets
- Free for nonprofit organizations
What to know first
- Multi-file programs must be merged before use
- Generated code can be slow on huge programs
- Commercial deployment requires a license with unlisted pricing
- Source is not generally open source
Alternatives to Obfuscator-LLVM Alternatives to Tigress The whole list