Teampass vs Vaultwarden
| Tagline | On-premise collaborative password manager for teams | Lightweight Bitwarden-compatible server written in Rust, perfect for self-hosting |
| Category | Password Managers & Secrets | Password Managers & Secrets |
| Replaces | LastPass, 1Password, Dashlane | 1Password, LastPass, Dashlane |
| GitHub stars | 1.8k | 67k |
| Language | PHP | Rust |
| License | GPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 4/5 Involved | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 2 days ago | 2 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.
Teampass
- Dated UI and UX compared to modern commercial managers
- Manual setup (LAMP stack, MySQL, PHP extensions) can be error-prone; security depends on correct server hardening
- No first-party mobile apps; browser/web focused
- Historically has had security-audit concerns; requires careful, up-to-date deployment
Vaultwarden
- Unofficial reimplementation; not supported or endorsed by Bitwarden, so API changes can break compatibility
- No official mobile/desktop apps of its own; depends entirely on Bitwarden's clients
- Some enterprise/SSO and event-logging features of paid Bitwarden are absent or only partially implemented
- You own all security hardening, backups, and TLS termination yourself
Bottom line
Choose Vaultwarden if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Vaultwarden for the larger community and ecosystem. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Vaultwarden
Lightweight Bitwarden-compatible server written in Rust, perfect for self-hosting