Vaultwarden vs Passbolt: Which Password Manager?

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.

Related

• How to Self-Host Vaultwarden
• How to Self-Host Passbolt
• Best Self-Hosted Password Managers
• Self-Hosted Alternatives to LastPass
• Self-Hosted Alternatives to 1Password
• Vaultwarden vs KeeWeb
• Docker Compose Basics