Infisical vs Passbolt
| Tagline | Open-source secrets management platform for developers and teams | Open-source password manager for teams with granular sharing and PGP encryption |
| Category | Password Managers & Secrets | Password Managers & Secrets |
| Replaces | HashiCorp Vault | 1Password, LastPass, Dashlane |
| GitHub stars | 29k | 6.1k |
| Language | TypeScript | PHP |
| License | MIT | 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 | yesterday | 4 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.
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
Passbolt
- Several features (SSO, directory sync, MFA policies, tags) are gated behind paid Pro/Cloud editions
- Relies on browser extensions; mobile app maturity lags 1Password/Dashlane
- Initial setup (GPG server keys, SMTP, HTTPS) is fiddly compared to consumer apps
- No personal/consumer focus — geared toward team credential sharing
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; 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.
Passbolt
Open-source password manager for teams with granular sharing and PGP encryption