vaultwarden

Pros of Bitwarden Server

• Official implementation with full feature support
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Regular updates and security audits

Cons of Bitwarden Server

• Higher resource requirements
• More complex setup and maintenance
• Requires a license for some enterprise features

Code Comparison

Bitwarden Server (C#):

public class User : ITableObject<Guid>
{
    public Guid Id { get; set; }
    public string Name { get; set; }
    public string Email { get; set; }
    public bool EmailVerified { get; set; }
}

Vaultwarden (Rust):

#[derive(Debug, Identifiable, Queryable, Insertable)]
#[table_name = "users"]
pub struct User {
    pub uuid: String,
    pub created_at: NaiveDateTime,
    pub updated_at: NaiveDateTime,
    pub email: String,
    pub name: String,
}

The code snippets show differences in language and structure between the two projects. Bitwarden Server uses C# with a more concise class definition, while Vaultwarden employs Rust with additional attributes and fields.

Vaultwarden, being a third-party implementation, aims for API compatibility with Bitwarden while offering a lighter resource footprint and easier deployment. It's particularly suitable for self-hosting scenarios but may lack some advanced features found in the official Bitwarden Server.

Pros of Keeweb

• Cross-platform compatibility: Works on web, desktop, and mobile devices
• Offline functionality: Can be used without an internet connection
• User-friendly interface: Intuitive design for easy password management

Cons of Keeweb

• Limited server-side features: Lacks advanced server management capabilities
• No built-in synchronization: Requires third-party services for syncing across devices
• Less extensive API support: Fewer integration options compared to Vaultwarden

Code Comparison

Keeweb (JavaScript):

const kdbxweb = require('kdbxweb');
const db = kdbxweb.Kdbx.create(credentials, 'My Database');
const group = db.createGroup(db.getDefaultGroup(), 'My Group');
const entry = db.createEntry(group);
entry.fields.Title = 'My Entry';

Vaultwarden (Rust):

use vaultwarden::db::DbConn;
use vaultwarden::api::EmptyResult;

pub fn create_cipher(conn: &DbConn, cipher: &NewCipher) -> EmptyResult {
    cipher.save(conn)
}

The code snippets demonstrate the basic operations for creating entries in each system. Keeweb uses JavaScript and focuses on client-side operations, while Vaultwarden utilizes Rust for server-side functionality.

Pros of Padloc

• Built with modern web technologies (TypeScript, Web Components)
• Offers a more user-friendly and visually appealing interface
• Supports multiple vaults and organization features out of the box

Cons of Padloc

• Less mature and battle-tested compared to Vaultwarden
• Smaller community and fewer third-party integrations
• May require more resources to run due to its tech stack

Code Comparison

Padloc (TypeScript):

export class Vault extends Serializable {
  @AsSerializable(Field)
  name: string = "";

  @AsSerializable(VaultItem)
  items: VaultItem[] = [];
}

Vaultwarden (Rust):

#[derive(Debug, Serialize, Deserialize)]
pub struct Cipher {
    pub uuid: String,
    pub folder_uuid: Option<String>,
    #[serde(rename = "type")]
    pub type_: i32,
    pub name: String,
    pub notes: Option<String>,
}

This comparison highlights the different programming languages and approaches used in each project. Padloc uses TypeScript with decorators for serialization, while Vaultwarden employs Rust with derive macros for struct definitions.

Pros of Buttercup

• Cross-platform desktop application with a user-friendly GUI
• Supports multiple vault formats and cloud storage options
• Offers a browser extension for easy password autofill

Cons of Buttercup

• Less robust server-side implementation compared to Vaultwarden
• May have fewer advanced features for enterprise use cases
• Smaller community and potentially slower development pace

Code Comparison

Buttercup (TypeScript):

export function createVault(name: string, password: string): Vault {
    const vault = Vault.createWithDefaults();
    vault.setPassword(password);
    vault.setAttribute(Vault.Attribute.Name, name);
    return vault;
}

Vaultwarden (Rust):

pub fn create_cipher(
    &self,
    user_uuid: &str,
    data: CipherData,
    headers: &Headers,
    conn: &DbConn,
) -> ApiResult<Cipher> {
    let mut cipher = Cipher::new(data.Type);
    cipher.user_uuid = Some(user_uuid.to_string());
    cipher.save(conn)?;
    Ok(cipher)
}

The code snippets show different approaches to creating secure storage objects. Buttercup focuses on client-side vault creation, while Vaultwarden demonstrates server-side cipher creation with database integration.