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.
Not the right match-up?
pass-tomb
Encrypted storage extension for the pass manager
VS
Rubywarden
Experimental Ruby implementation of the Bitwarden API
| Feature | pass-tomb | Rubywarden |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | ★ 435 | ★ 589 |
| First released | 2017 | 2017 |
| Replaces | 1Password, KeePass | Bitwarden, 1Password |
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
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 pass-tomb 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.