pass-tomb 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-tomb | Rubywarden |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Read-the-docs project | Read-the-docs project |
| Health score | 46 · Fair | 11 · At risk |
| Status | Actively maintained | Archived |
| Category | Password Managers | Password Managers |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | Shell | Ruby |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | binary, source | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 437 | ★ 587 |
| First released | 2017 | 2017 |
| Replaces | 1Password, KeePass | Bitwarden, 1Password |
What are pass-tomb and Rubywarden?
pass-tomb
pass-tomb is an open-source extension for the standard Unix password manager that keeps the password store inside an encrypted Tomb container. It hides the directory structure of secrets when the store is locked.
- Encrypted Tomb container
- Hides store structure
- Integrates with pass
- Command-line workflow
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-tomb vs Rubywarden: key differences
The biggest difference is maintenance: Rubywarden's repository is archived and no longer developed, while pass-tomb is actively maintained. Pass-tomb is written in Shell, while Rubywarden is built with Ruby. Licensing differs — GPL-3.0 for pass-tomb versus MIT for Rubywarden. Pass-tomb is the lighter option, starting around 64 MB of RAM against 128 MB for Rubywarden.
Why pick each one
Choose pass-tomb if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Written in Shell
- Tiny footprint — runs in 64 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-tomb or Rubywarden better?
Rubywarden is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler medium setup. Consider Rubywarden if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are pass-tomb and Rubywarden free and open-source?
Yes. pass-tomb is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Rubywarden under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run pass-tomb and Rubywarden with Docker?
pass-tomb: check the project docs for container support. Rubywarden: check the project docs for container support.
Which is lighter on resources, pass-tomb or Rubywarden?
pass-tomb has the smaller minimum footprint at 64 MB of RAM, compared to about 128 MB for Rubywarden. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.