Learn how TeamPass and Vaultwarden 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 30 days
Last commit
9 hours agoRepository age
9 yearsVersion
1.37.5License
AGPL-3.0Self-hosted
YesRepository
vaultwarden
Both TeamPass and Vaultwarden 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.
Vaultwarden significantly outpaces TeamPass in community adoption with 70,780 stars compared to 1,892 stars on GitHub. This 37.4x difference suggests Vaultwarden has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Vaultwarden has 3,460 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
TeamPass is growing faster, adding 57 stars in the last 30 days (+3.1%) against adding 1,607 stars for Vaultwarden (+2.3%). 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 TeamPass last updated 1 day ago and Vaultwarden 9 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with Bash. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: TeamPass uses JavaScript, CSS, PHP while Vaultwarden leverages Typescript, Python, Rust.
TeamPass has been in development longer, starting 15 years ago, compared to Vaultwarden which began 9 years ago. This 6.2-year head start suggests TeamPass may have more mature features and established processes.
The projects use different licenses: TeamPass is licensed under GPL-3.0 while Vaultwarden uses AGPL-3.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Password Managers.
Both TeamPass and Vaultwarden offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.