Quick Verdict
Vaultwarden is the better choice for most people. It works with all Bitwarden clients (browser, desktop, mobile), supports auto-fill everywhere, and has a simpler setup. Choose Passbolt only if you need team credential sharing with granular permissions and audit trails — it's built specifically for that use case.
Overview
Vaultwarden is a lightweight Rust reimplementation of the Bitwarden server API. It's compatible with all official Bitwarden clients and designed primarily for personal and family use, though it supports organizations and sharing. It runs on SQLite with ~50 MB RAM.
Passbolt is a team-oriented password manager built on OpenPGP end-to-end encryption. It's designed for organizations that need to share credentials with audit logs, group-based permissions, and compliance features. The Community Edition requires MariaDB and a browser extension for access.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Vaultwarden | Passbolt CE |
|---|---|---|
| Encryption | AES-256 + Argon2 | OpenPGP (GPG) |
| Browser extension | Yes (Bitwarden) | Yes (Passbolt) |
| Desktop app | Yes (Bitwarden) | No |
| Mobile app | Yes (Bitwarden iOS/Android) | No (Pro/Cloud only) |
| Auto-fill | Browser, desktop, mobile | Browser only |
| Web vault | Yes | Limited (needs extension) |
| Password sharing | Organizations + collections | Groups + permissions |
| Audit logs | No | Yes |
| TOTP 2FA storage | Yes | No |
| File attachments | Yes | No (CE) |
| Emergency access | Yes | No |
| Passkeys | Yes | No |
| Send (temporary sharing) | Yes | No |
| LDAP integration | No (Pro only) | No (Pro only) |
| API / CLI | Yes (Bitwarden CLI) | Yes (REST API + GPG) |
| Import from other managers | Extensive format support | CSV import |
| Database | SQLite (default) | MariaDB/MySQL (required) |
| Docker image size | ~50 MB | ~400 MB |
| RAM usage (idle) | ~50 MB | ~400 MB (with MariaDB) |
Installation Complexity
Vaultwarden is dramatically simpler to deploy. It's a single container with an optional SQLite database (no external DB required). A minimal docker-compose.yml is under 20 lines. The only hard requirement is HTTPS — Bitwarden clients refuse plain HTTP connections.
Passbolt requires MariaDB, a working SMTP server (non-negotiable — email is required for account creation and recovery), and the browser extension. The Docker Compose file has two services minimum. Initial user creation requires a CLI command, and the browser extension must be installed before completing registration. The OpenPGP key generation during setup adds another step.
Winner: Vaultwarden. It's a 5-minute setup vs. a 20-minute setup, and Vaultwarden has fewer hard dependencies.
Performance and Resource Usage
| Metric | Vaultwarden | Passbolt CE |
|---|---|---|
| Idle RAM | ~50 MB | ~400 MB (with MariaDB) |
| Docker image | ~50 MB | ~400 MB + ~400 MB MariaDB |
| CPU at idle | Negligible | Low |
| Disk footprint | ~100 MB | ~1 GB |
| Startup time | 2-3 seconds | 30-60 seconds |
Vaultwarden's Rust implementation is roughly 8x more memory-efficient. On a Raspberry Pi or low-RAM VPS, this difference matters.
Community and Support
| Metric | Vaultwarden | Passbolt |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | 43,000+ | 4,500+ |
| Community size | Very large (Bitwarden ecosystem) | Medium |
| Documentation | Good (Bitwarden docs + Vaultwarden wiki) | Good (official docs) |
| Update frequency | Regular releases | Regular releases |
| Client ecosystem | Bitwarden's mature client apps | Browser extension only (CE) |
Vaultwarden benefits enormously from the Bitwarden ecosystem. Every Bitwarden tutorial, guide, and client app works with Vaultwarden. Passbolt has good official documentation but a much smaller community.
Use Cases
Choose Vaultwarden If...
- You need a personal or family password manager
- You want mobile auto-fill (iOS/Android)
- You want desktop apps for macOS, Windows, Linux
- You want TOTP 2FA code storage
- You want the simplest setup possible
- You're running on limited hardware (Raspberry Pi, low-RAM VPS)
- You want passkey support
- You want emergency access features
Choose Passbolt If...
- You need team credential sharing for a business or organization
- You need audit logs showing who accessed which credentials
- You need granular group-based permissions
- OpenPGP-based E2E encryption matters for your compliance requirements
- You're okay with browser-only access (no mobile in CE)
- You have a working SMTP server for email notifications
Final Verdict
For personal use, family sharing, or small teams that just need shared passwords, Vaultwarden wins decisively. It has better clients, lower resource usage, simpler setup, and a larger ecosystem.
For organizations that specifically need team credential management with audit trails and permission controls, Passbolt fills a niche that Vaultwarden doesn't. But most teams would still be better served by Vaultwarden's organizations feature, which covers 90% of team sharing needs with far less complexity.
The honest recommendation: start with Vaultwarden. If you outgrow its team features, then evaluate Passbolt.
FAQ
Can Vaultwarden do team sharing?
Yes. Vaultwarden supports organizations with collections (shared folders). You can create groups, assign permissions per collection, and share credentials. It lacks audit logs and the fine-grained permission model of Passbolt, but covers most team sharing needs.
Can I migrate from Passbolt to Vaultwarden?
Yes, but not directly. Export from Passbolt as CSV, then import into Vaultwarden/Bitwarden. Shared credentials and group structures won't transfer — you'll need to recreate organizations and collections.
Which is more secure?
Both are secure but use different approaches. Passbolt uses OpenPGP (asymmetric cryptography per-user), while Vaultwarden uses AES-256 with client-side encryption. Both encrypt data before it reaches the server. Passbolt's model is arguably more secure for team sharing (each user has their own key), but Vaultwarden's approach is battle-tested by the massive Bitwarden user base.
Top comments (0)