Learn how Bitwarden and TeamPass differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these password managers is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
5 hours agoRepository age
11 yearsVersion
v2026.10.0License
AGPL-3.0Self-hosted
YesRepository
bitwarden/server
Last 30 days

Both Bitwarden and TeamPass have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Bitwarden significantly outpaces TeamPass in community adoption with 20,479 stars compared to 1,863 stars on GitHub. This 11.0x difference suggests Bitwarden has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Bitwarden has 1,817 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
TeamPass is growing faster, adding 34 stars in the last 30 days (+1.9%) against adding 277 stars for Bitwarden (+1.4%). TeamPass is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Bitwarden last updated 5 hours ago and TeamPass 6 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Bitwarden uses SCSS, C# while TeamPass leverages PHP.
TeamPass has been in development longer, starting 15 years ago, compared to Bitwarden which began 11 years ago. This 4.0-year head start suggests TeamPass may have more mature features and established processes.
The projects use different licenses: Bitwarden is licensed under AGPL-3.0 while TeamPass uses GPL-3.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Password Managers.
Both Bitwarden and TeamPass offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.