Authelia vs Bitwarden Server
| Tagline | Self-hosted authentication server with TOTP, WebAuthn, and SSO | Official open-source server for the Bitwarden password manager |
| Category | Password Managers & Secrets | Password Managers & Secrets |
| Replaces | 1Password, HashiCorp Vault | 1Password, LastPass, Dashlane |
| GitHub stars | 29k | 20k |
| Language | Go | C# |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | today | yesterday |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Authelia
- Not a password vault; does not store or generate passwords for websites
- Requires a reverse proxy to function; no standalone mode
- LDAP/AD integration configuration is complex for non-enterprise users
Bitwarden Server
- The official self-host stack is resource-heavy (many containers including SQL Server/MSSQL) compared to Vaultwarden
- Some enterprise features (SSO/SCIM, advanced policies) require a paid license even when self-hosting
- Self-hosting requires a Bitwarden installation ID/key obtained from their website
- Heavier maintenance burden than lightweight alternatives
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Authelia for the larger community and ecosystem. Authelia has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.