Infisical vs Passky
| Tagline | Open-source secrets management platform for developers and teams | Lightweight self-hosted password manager with a clean web UI |
| Category | Password Managers & Secrets | Password Managers & Secrets |
| Replaces | HashiCorp Vault | 1Password, LastPass, Dashlane |
| GitHub stars | 27k | 900 |
| Language | TypeScript | PHP |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual | Docker Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 5 days ago | 1 month 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
Passky
- No emergency access or secure sharing between users on the same server
- Audit log and reporting features are basic compared to enterprise vaults
- Community and ecosystem are small; long-term maintenance is less certain
Bottom line
Choose Passky 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.