Comparison · Self-hosted vs Self-hosted

Cipher vs Bitwarden

Bitwarden is $10/yr (Premium). Cipher is a self-hosted alternative at $0.99/mo. Here's when each makes sense.

At a glance

	Cipher	Bitwarden
Hosting	Self-hosted, your infra	Self-hostable via Vaultwarden (unofficial) or official server (requires Docker + MSSQL)
Data location	Your server, your disk	Your server (if self-hosted)
Free tier	50 entries	Paid only
Pro pricing	$0.99/mo	$10/yr (Premium)
Dependencies	None (single binary + SQLite)	Docker, Postgres, etc.
Setup time	~30 seconds	15-30 minutes (self-host)
Dashboard	Built-in at /ui	Web UI
License	BSL 1.1	Open source

When to use Cipher

Pick Cipher when you want simplicity and ownership.

Single binary — no Docker or MSSQL
Simpler self-hosted deployment
$0.99/mo vs $4/user/mo for teams

Cipher is a single Go binary with embedded SQLite. Install it with one command, and you are running in under a minute. Your data stays on your server.

curl -fsSL https://stockyard.dev/cipher/install.sh | sh

Install Cipher Cipher docs

When Bitwarden fits better

Bitwarden makes sense when you need more.

Best-in-class password manager
Apps for every platform
Browser extensions for all browsers
End-to-end encryption with zero-knowledge architecture
Bitwarden Send for secure sharing

Bitwarden is the best open-source password manager. The free tier is incredibly generous, the apps are excellent, and Vaultwarden makes self-hosting practical. If you want a password manager, use Bitwarden. Cipher is for teams that want a simpler self-hosted deployment without Docker.

Deciding between the two

Bitwarden is a strong product. There is no point pretending otherwise. Where Cipher earns its place is in situations where Bitwarden cannot be used — airgapped environments, regulated industries, teams with strict data sovereignty requirements, or simply developers who prefer tools they can inspect end to end. If none of those constraints apply, Bitwarden may genuinely be the better choice.

How they differ under the hood

Architecturally, Cipher and Bitwarden could not be more different. Bitwarden runs on distributed cloud infrastructure with load balancers, managed databases, CDNs, and redundancy across availability zones. Cipher is a single process writing to a single file on a single disk. That sounds fragile until you realize that SQLite handles more concurrent readers than most web applications will ever need, and WAL mode means reads never block writes.

Both Cipher and Bitwarden offer self-hosted options, but the operational requirements differ. Self-hostable via Vaultwarden (unofficial) or official server (requires Docker + MSSQL) Cipher is a single binary with embedded SQLite — no containers, no external databases, no orchestration. The practical difference: Cipher runs on a $5 VPS with no configuration. Self-hosting Bitwarden typically requires a more substantial infrastructure investment.

Migration path

Moving from Bitwarden does not have to be all-or-nothing. Some teams run Cipher for new data while keeping Bitwarden as a read-only archive of historical records. The API makes it straightforward to build a sync script if you need both systems to reflect the same data during a transition period.

FAQ

Is Cipher a Bitwarden alternative?

Bitwarden is the best password manager available. Cipher is a simpler self-hosted option. For most people, Bitwarden (free or Premium) is the better choice.

Should I use Cipher instead of Bitwarden?

Probably not. Bitwarden's free tier is excellent and Vaultwarden makes self-hosting easy. Use Cipher only if you need a single-binary deployment without Docker.

Cipher vs Bitwarden

Pick Cipher when you want simplicity and ownership.

Bitwarden makes sense when you need more.

Self-hosted password manager in 30 seconds.