Rubywarden vs HashiCorp Vault
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?
Rubywarden
Experimental Ruby implementation of the Bitwarden API
VS
HashiCorp Vault
Secrets management and data protection for infrastructure
| Feature | Rubywarden | HashiCorp Vault |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Password Managers | Password Managers |
| License | MIT | BUSL-1.1 |
| Language | Ruby | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, kubernetes, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 589 | ★ 36,086 |
| First released | 2017 | 2015 |
| Replaces | Bitwarden, 1Password | AWS Secrets Manager, Azure Key Vault |
Why pick each one
Choose HashiCorp Vault if…
- Industry standard for secrets
- Powerful policy engine
Frequently asked questions
Is Rubywarden or HashiCorp Vault better?
Neither is universally better. HashiCorp Vault has the larger community, while Rubywarden is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Rubywarden and HashiCorp Vault free and open-source?
Yes. Rubywarden is licensed under MIT and HashiCorp Vault under BUSL-1.1. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Rubywarden and HashiCorp Vault with Docker?
Rubywarden: check the project docs for container support. HashiCorp Vault: yes.