pass 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 | Rubywarden |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Read-the-docs project | Read-the-docs project |
| Status | Actively maintained | Archived |
| Category | Password Managers | Password Managers |
| License | GPL-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Shell | Ruby |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 32 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, binary, source | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 4,200 | ★ 587 |
| First released | 2012 | 2017 |
| Replaces | 1Password, LastPass | Bitwarden, 1Password |
What are pass and Rubywarden?
pass
pass is a minimalist password manager that stores each secret in a GPG-encrypted file, optionally versioned with git. It follows the Unix philosophy and works entirely from the command line.
- GPG-encrypted password files
- Optional git versioning and sync
- Scriptable command-line workflow
- Many compatible GUI and mobile clients
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 vs Rubywarden: key differences
The biggest difference is maintenance: Rubywarden's repository is archived and no longer developed, while pass is actively maintained. Pass is written in Shell, while Rubywarden is built with Ruby. Licensing differs — GPL-2.0 for pass versus MIT for Rubywarden. Pass is the lighter option, starting around 32 MB of RAM against 128 MB for Rubywarden. Pass is the more established project (first released 2012), while Rubywarden arrived in 2017. Pass has the considerably larger community, at 4,200 GitHub stars versus 587.
Why pick each one
Choose pass if…
- Simple and transparent storage
- Composes well with other tools
Watch out for
- Command-line oriented
- Requires GPG knowledge
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 or Rubywarden better?
Neither is universally better. pass has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are pass and Rubywarden free and open-source?
Yes. pass is licensed under GPL-2.0 and Rubywarden under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run pass and Rubywarden with Docker?
pass: check the project docs for container support. Rubywarden: check the project docs for container support.
Which is lighter on resources, pass or Rubywarden?
pass 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.