Rubywarden vs One-Time Secret
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted password managers options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
| Feature | Rubywarden | One-Time Secret |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Read-the-docs project | Under-an-hour setup |
| Health score | 11 · At risk | 87 · Excellent |
| Status | Archived | Actively maintained |
| Category | Password Managers | Password Managers |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Ruby | Ruby |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 587 | ★ 2,942 |
| First released | 2017 | 2012 |
| Replaces | Bitwarden, 1Password | 1Password, Doppler |
What are Rubywarden and One-Time Secret?
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
One-Time Secret
One-Time Secret is an open-source service for sharing passwords and other sensitive information through links that can only be viewed once. After the secret is read or expires, it is permanently deleted.
- Self-destructing secret links
- Optional passphrase protection
- Configurable expiration times
- Simple REST API
Rubywarden vs One-Time Secret: key differences
The biggest difference is maintenance: Rubywarden's repository is archived and no longer developed, while One-Time Secret is actively maintained. Both projects are written in Ruby. Rubywarden is the lighter option, starting around 128 MB of RAM against 256 MB for One-Time Secret. One-Time Secret is the more established project (first released 2012), while Rubywarden arrived in 2017. One-Time Secret has the considerably larger community, at 2,942 GitHub stars versus 587. One-Time Secret lists first-class Docker deployment; Rubywarden does not.
Why pick each one
Choose Rubywarden if…
- Simple personal deployment
- Compatible with Bitwarden apps
Watch out for
- Explicitly experimental
- Not recommended for large teams
Choose One-Time Secret if…
- Great for one-off credential sharing
- Easy to self-host
Watch out for
- Not a long-term vault
Frequently asked questions
Is Rubywarden or One-Time Secret better?
One-Time Secret is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Rubywarden if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Rubywarden and One-Time Secret free and open-source?
Yes. Rubywarden is licensed under MIT and One-Time Secret under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Rubywarden and One-Time Secret with Docker?
Rubywarden: check the project docs for container support. One-Time Secret: yes.
Which is lighter on resources, Rubywarden or One-Time Secret?
Rubywarden has the smaller minimum footprint at 128 MB of RAM, compared to about 256 MB for One-Time Secret. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.