Vaultwarden vs Bitwarden comparison. Lightweight vs official server. Docker resources, features, security, and which self-hosted password manager to choose.
Vaultwarden is the best choice for self-hosting: uses 10x less RAM, fully compatible with Bitwarden clients, and easier to maintain. Use official Bitwarden only if you need enterprise features.
| Feature | Vaultwarden | Bitwarden |
|---|---|---|
| Official Client Support | ✓ | ✓ |
| Browser Extensions | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile Apps | ✓ | ✓ |
| Organizations/Teams | ✓ | ✓ |
| Emergency Access | ✓ | ✓ |
| RAM Usage | ~50MB | ~500MB+ |
| Docker Compose | 1 container | 8+ containers |
| Setup Complexity | Easy | Complex |
| Enterprise SSO | ✗ | ✓ |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
Winner: Vaultwarden — For self-hosting, Vaultwarden is the clear winner. It runs in a single Docker container with ~50MB RAM and works with all official Bitwarden apps. Official Bitwarden server is only needed for enterprise deployments.
Yes. Vaultwarden implements the Bitwarden API and is written in Rust. It is audited by the community and has 40,000+ GitHub stars. Your passwords are encrypted client-side before reaching the server.
Yes. All official Bitwarden clients (mobile, browser, desktop) work with Vaultwarden. Just change the server URL in settings.
Yes. Export from Bitwarden and import into Vaultwarden, or point your clients to the new Vaultwarden server URL.
Yes. Vaultwarden supports organizations for sharing vaults between users, matching most Bitwarden organization features.