Rubywarden vs TeamPass
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted password managers options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
| Feature | Rubywarden | TeamPass |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Read-the-docs project | Under-an-hour setup |
| Health score | 11 · At risk | 85 · Excellent |
| Status | Archived | Actively maintained |
| Category | Password Managers | Password Managers |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Ruby | PHP |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 587 | ★ 1,828 |
| First released | 2017 | 2010 |
| Replaces | Bitwarden, 1Password | LastPass, 1Password |
What are Rubywarden and TeamPass?
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
TeamPass
TeamPass is a collaborative password manager that lets teams store and share credentials with granular access rights. It targets IT teams managing shared passwords. It is deployed via Docker or a PHP stack.
- Granular access control
- Folder-based credential organization
- LDAP integration
- Audit logging
Rubywarden vs TeamPass: key differences
The biggest difference is maintenance: Rubywarden's repository is archived and no longer developed, while TeamPass is actively maintained. Rubywarden is written in Ruby, while TeamPass is built with PHP. Licensing differs — MIT for Rubywarden versus GPL-3.0 for TeamPass. Rubywarden is the lighter option, starting around 128 MB of RAM against 512 MB for TeamPass. TeamPass is the more established project (first released 2010), while Rubywarden arrived in 2017. TeamPass has the considerably larger community, at 1,828 GitHub stars versus 587. TeamPass 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 TeamPass if…
- Good for shared team passwords
- Detailed permissions
- Mature
Watch out for
- Dated interface
- Configuration is involved
Frequently asked questions
Is Rubywarden or TeamPass better?
Neither is universally better. TeamPass has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Rubywarden and TeamPass free and open-source?
Yes. Rubywarden is licensed under MIT and TeamPass under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Rubywarden and TeamPass with Docker?
Rubywarden: check the project docs for container support. TeamPass: yes.
Which is lighter on resources, Rubywarden or TeamPass?
Rubywarden has the smaller minimum footprint at 128 MB of RAM, compared to about 512 MB for TeamPass. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.