Bitwarden ranks #1 of 9 in our password managers testing. the only one open source top to bottom, audited by a named firm every year since 2018, and the cheapest here..
94/100
nothing else here lets outside researchers read both the client and the server, and nothing else has an audit trail this long or this specific.
why people look for an alternative
−argon2id is opt-in; pbkdf2 remains the default
−free-tier sharing limited to one other person
−interface is plainer than the commercial rivals
stay with Bitwarden if client and server both open source is the thing you care about most — nothing below beats it on that.
#2 in password managers · free, fully open, and the only one with no server at all — there is no vendor vault for anyone to steal.
89/100
verdictstructurally immune to the incident that defines this category, at the cost of doing your own syncing — a trade that is obviously right for some people and obviously wrong for others.
KeePassXC vs Bitwarden
Bitwarden
KeePassXC
price
$19.80/yr
free
free tier
yes
yes
source
open: client + server
open: client, no server
latest audit
2025, eth zurich + unit 42
anssi cspn, 2.7.9-era
breach history
none known
n/a — no server
free tier
unlimited items and devices
entirely free
individual/yr
$19.80
$0
switch forpeople who would rather own the risk themselves than trust anyone's cloud with it.
pros
+no vendor server and no cloud vault to breach
+fully open source under gplv3
+completely free with no tiers
+anssi cspn certification on 2.7.9
cons
−you supply and secure your own sync
−audit history found is a single dated certification
#4 in password managers · the best key architecture in the category, from the vendor that just made its audit reports harder to read.
84/100
verdictthe secret key design genuinely raises the floor on a weak master password — but a closed stack whose reports moved behind a request form in late 2025 is asking for more trust than it used to.
1Password vs Bitwarden
Bitwarden
1Password
price
$19.80/yr
$35.88/yr
free tier
yes
no
source
open: client + server
closed: client + server
latest audit
2025, eth zurich + unit 42
2025, gated behind request
breach history
none known
none to vault data
free tier
unlimited items and devices
none — 14-day trial
individual/yr
$19.80
$35.88
switch forhouseholds and businesses who want the most polished product and will pay for it.
pros
+secret key design defeats offline brute force on a stolen vault
+srp authentication — password never transmitted
+soc 2 type 2 plus four iso certifications
+no breach of customer vault data in ~20 years
cons
−neither client nor server is open source
−recent audit reports gated behind trust center requests since nov 2025
−no free tier, only a 14-day trial
−losing both secret key and master password is unrecoverable
#9 in password managers · the only confirmed large-scale vault breach in this category, disclosed in unusual detail by the company that suffered it.
48/100
verdictranked last on the record rather than the technology: customer vault backups and unencrypted urls left the building in 2022, and no amount of subsequent hardening undoes that.
LastPass vs Bitwarden
Bitwarden
LastPass
price
$19.80/yr
unverified
free tier
yes
yes
source
open: client + server
closed: client + server
latest audit
2025, eth zurich + unit 42
asserted, none named
breach history
none known
2022 vaults, 2015 hashes
free tier
unlimited items and devices
one device type
individual/yr
$19.80
not readable
switch forexisting users planning an export — and worth reading before choosing anything else, because the disclosure is genuinely instructive.
pros
+the most detailed, dated first-party breach disclosure here
+passkey creation and storage on paid tiers
+iso 27001, soc 2 type ii, soc 3 and bsi c5 certifications
cons
−2022 breach exfiltrated customer vault backups and metadata
−website urls in those vaults were never encrypted
−separate 2015 incident exposed hashes and reminders
−no auditor named and no report linked on its security page
every tool on this page went through the same test as Bitwarden — same tasks, same order, scored the same way. the comparison tables are the figures from that testing, not vendor spec sheets.