pass-otp vs Rubywarden
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted password managers options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
| Feature | pass-otp | Rubywarden |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Read-the-docs project | Read-the-docs project |
| Health score | 28 · At risk | 11 · At risk |
| Status | Actively maintained | Archived |
| Category | Password Managers | Password Managers |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | Shell | Ruby |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 32 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | binary, source | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1,498 | ★ 587 |
| First released | 2017 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Authy, 1Password | Bitwarden, 1Password |
What are pass-otp and Rubywarden?
pass-otp
pass-otp is an open-source extension that adds TOTP one-time-password support to the standard Unix password manager. It generates two-factor codes directly from secrets stored in the pass tree.
- TOTP code generation
- Integrates with pass
- Offline two-factor
- Command-line based
Rubywarden
Rubywarden is an unofficial, self-hosted server that implements the Bitwarden API in Ruby, allowing Bitwarden clients to sync against a private backend. It is a lightweight alternative server for personal and small deployments.
- Bitwarden-compatible API
- Works with official clients
- Lightweight Ruby stack
- SQLite storage
pass-otp vs Rubywarden: key differences
The biggest difference is maintenance: Rubywarden's repository is archived and no longer developed, while pass-otp is actively maintained. Pass-otp is written in Shell, while Rubywarden is built with Ruby. Licensing differs — GPL-3.0 for pass-otp versus MIT for Rubywarden. Pass-otp is the lighter option, starting around 32 MB of RAM against 128 MB for Rubywarden. Pass-otp has the considerably larger community, at 1,498 GitHub stars versus 587.
Why pick each one
Choose pass-otp if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Active community (1.5k GitHub stars)
- Written in Shell
- Tiny footprint — runs in 32 MB RAM
Choose Rubywarden if…
- Simple personal deployment
- Compatible with Bitwarden apps
Watch out for
- Explicitly experimental
- Not recommended for large teams
Frequently asked questions
Is pass-otp or Rubywarden better?
Neither is universally better. pass-otp has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are pass-otp and Rubywarden free and open-source?
Yes. pass-otp is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Rubywarden under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run pass-otp and Rubywarden with Docker?
pass-otp: check the project docs for container support. Rubywarden: check the project docs for container support.
Which is lighter on resources, pass-otp or Rubywarden?
pass-otp has the smaller minimum footprint at 32 MB of RAM, compared to about 128 MB for Rubywarden. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.