gopass vs Infisical
| Tagline | Team-oriented CLI password manager built on GPG and Git | Open-source secrets management platform for developers and teams |
| Category | Password Managers & Secrets | Password Managers & Secrets |
| Replaces | 1Password, LastPass, HashiCorp Vault | HashiCorp Vault |
| GitHub stars | 6k | 27k |
| Language | Go | TypeScript |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Manual | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 1 month ago | 5 days ago |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
gopass
- GPG key management is a significant operational burden, especially for team onboarding
- No web UI or mobile app; CLI-only unless paired with third-party frontends
- Revoking access for a departing team member requires re-encrypting all shared secrets
Infisical
- Core is MIT but a number of features live under an enterprise (ee) license requiring a paid plan
- Less battle-tested than Vault for low-level cryptographic/dynamic-secret workloads
- Self-hosted instances do not include all features available in the paid cloud tier
- Smaller plugin/integration catalog than HashiCorp Vault
Bottom line
Choose gopass if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Infisical for the larger community and ecosystem. Infisical has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.