head to head · open source

Bitwarden vs 2FAS

Bitwarden has 20,156 GitHub stars, 1,772 forks, 230 open issues and last shipped yesterday. 2FAS has 1,514 stars, 130 forks, 125 open issues and last shipped 3 days ago. Bitwarden leads on adoption by 1,231% (20,156 vs 1,514 stars). Bitwarden is written in C# under a custom or non-standard licence; 2FAS is written in Kotlin under GPL-3.0. Bitwarden has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, 2FAS 9%. Bitwarden was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

Bitwarden ★ 20K 2FAS ★ 1.5K category Productivity & Utilities

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

Bitwarden 2FAS
GitHub stars ★ 20K ★ 1.5K
License Custom / other GPL-3.0
Written in C# Kotlin
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-15
Forks ⑂ 1.8K ⑂ 130
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick Bitwarden if

  • You weight community size — 20K stars and counting
  • You want the Custom / other license terms
  • Your stack matches C#
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full Bitwarden profile →

pick 2FAS if

  • You want the 2FAS feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the GPL-3.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Kotlin
  • You evaluated both and 2FAS fits your workflow better

full 2FAS profile →

About Bitwarden

Bitwarden Server is the backend infrastructure for Bitwarden client applications, and it lives in the .NET ecosystem. The repository contains the APIs, database, and core services that support secure password management for individuals and businesses.

read the full Bitwarden overview →

About 2FAS

2FAS is an open source Android application for two factor authentication, and its listing describes it as a local first 2FA authenticator and password manager. The project lives in the password and secret management ecosystem, and the repository contains the source code for the 2FAS Auth Android app, written in Kotlin and licensed under the GNU General Public License v3.0. The README presents 2FAS as an authentication method that adds a second factor, such as a one time password shown on a phone, alongside a username and password.

read the full 2FAS overview →

More in Productivity & Utilities

n8n ★ 205K Excalidraw ★ 132K RustDesk ★ 124K Browser Use ★ 115K LocalSend ★ 92K AppFlowy ★ 77K

Related comparisons

keepassxc vs bitwarden bitwarden vs aegis-authenticator keepassxc vs 2fas bitwarden vs passbolt keepassxc vs aegis-authenticator keepassxc vs passbolt keepassxc vs padloc keepassxc vs pearpass n8n vs browser-use n8n vs frigate n8n vs lightpanda n8n vs proxmoxve n8n vs activepieces n8n vs skyvern n8n vs automa n8n vs livekit n8n vs obs-studio n8n vs sharex n8n vs kap excalidraw vs obs-studio n8n vs snapify excalidraw vs sharex excalidraw vs kap excalidraw vs snapify

More Password & Secret Management projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Password & Secret Management field.

Bitwarden vs KeePassXC Bitwarden vs Aegis Authenticator Bitwarden vs Passbolt Bitwarden vs Padloc Bitwarden vs PearPass

Frequently asked questions

Is Bitwarden or 2FAS more popular?

Bitwarden has 20,156 GitHub stars and 2FAS has 1,514. Bitwarden has the larger community by that measure.

Are Bitwarden and 2FAS free?

Both are open source. Bitwarden has no licence declared in this registry, and 2FAS is licensed under GPL-3.0. Both are free to self-host.

What is the difference between Bitwarden and 2FAS?

Bitwarden is written in C# and 2FAS in Kotlin. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, Bitwarden or 2FAS?

Choose Bitwarden if you want the larger community (20,156 stars) or its Custom / other licence terms. Choose 2FAS if its feature set, stack or GPL-3.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.