whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Password Management

PassCamp

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by PassCamp · passcamp.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

PassCamp: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai PassCamp: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

PassCamp at a glance

Vendor
PassCamp
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Default not stated; pages mention the EU source, captured 20 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates PassCamp 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. PassCamp is a cloud-based password manager from UAB PassCamp, a Lithuanian company; the vendor places vault data on Google Cloud Platform in Belgium and hosts support and email services primarily in Lithuania. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources

PassCamp alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The CISO

Weighted verdict

Answers to the board for the day the vault vendor is breached. Wants a whitepaper that says which fields are encrypted and which are not, audits by named firms with dates, a bug bounty, and an incident history written down rather than discovered in the press.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The CISO

Panel median The CISO This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The CISO
Encryption model & independent audits 2 of 5 1.5 of 5
Sharing, roles & recovery 2 of 5 2 of 5
SSO, directory sync & provisioning 0.5 of 5 0.5 of 5
Audit logs, policies & reporting 1.5 of 5 1 of 5
Hosting choice, offline access & export 2 of 5 2 of 5
European sovereignty 2.5 of 5 2 of 5

Encryption model & independent audits

How this is scored

What the vendor can prove about its security design: end-to-end encryption with named algorithms and key derivation, which fields are encrypted on the device and which are not, independent audits and penetration tests with published results, a bug bounty, and incident history disclosed.

0 — Security described in adjectives ("bank-grade", "military encryption") with no architecture, no audit and no statement of what the vendor can read.

3 — Encryption algorithms named and "zero knowledge" claimed, but no whitepaper, no statement of which fields stay unencrypted, and audits mentioned without dates, auditors or results.

5 — A published security whitepaper naming algorithms, key derivation and the client-side encryption model, a stated list of what is and is not encrypted (including URLs and metadata), and a named independent audit or certification (ISO 27001, SOC 2) with its date.

8 — Recurring independent penetration tests or code audits with reports or summaries published, a public bug bounty or vulnerability disclosure policy, past security incidents documented with their impact, and open-source clients or cryptography that can be reviewed.

10 — The design is verifiable end to end: full source or cryptographic design public, every field encrypted client-side including metadata, audits by named firms repeated yearly with full reports, a threat model that states what a compromise of the vendor's servers would expose, and incident post-mortems published.

Report an error

The CISO

AES-256, RSA-4096, SRP 6A and zero-knowledge are named, and the master password is described as unlocking the private key that decrypts the data, but the white paper is only pointed to and its content is not evidenced. The only statement of what the vendor can read is a privacy-policy split between encrypted Secure Data and staff-visible Service Data covering server logs, billing information and client IP addresses; we found no field-level statement for vault items or metadata. We found no public information on independent audits, penetration tests, a bug bounty, or disclosed incident history. 2 3 4

Report an error

Sharing, roles & recovery

How this is scored

How credentials are shared and governed across a company: shared vaults or collections, role-based permissions, view-only and time-limited access, admin account recovery, emergency access, and what happens to shared items when an employee leaves.

0 — Personal vaults only, or sharing by sending a password to another user with no permissions and no record.

3 — Shared folders with all-or-nothing access, no roles, and no stated process for recovering an account or reclaiming credentials from a departing employee.

5 — Shared vaults or collections with read, edit and manage permissions, groups and admin roles, an admin recovery mechanism documented with its key model, and offboarding that transfers a leaver's shared items.

8 — Granular permissions down to hiding the password while allowing autofill, time-limited and one-time sharing with external parties, emergency access with a waiting period, delegated administration per team or location, and approval workflows for sensitive items.

10 — Access is governed and provable: least-privilege defaults, recovery and emergency access designed so the vendor never holds a key and stated so, periodic access reviews supported in the product, and every grant, change and revocation attributable to a person.

Report an error

The CISO

Sharing is per item with multi-tier permissions — view, edit, share — backed by RSA asymmetric encryption and an immutable history log of edits, shares, modification dates and old versions, which is more than all-or-nothing folders. We found no public information on groups, admin roles, an admin account recovery mechanism, emergency access, or what happens to a leaver's shared items. Those last items are the ones I need answered in writing before any company-wide rollout. 4 5

Report an error

SSO, directory sync & provisioning

How this is scored

How the vault fits into the company's identity stack: SSO with Entra ID, Okta or Google, and the key model behind an SSO unlock; SCIM or directory sync for joiners and leavers; MFA options including hardware keys; and passkey support for users and the vault itself.

0 — Each user creates an account by email; no SSO, no directory sync and no MFA beyond an app code.

3 — SSO available only to sign in to the admin console or on the top tier with no description of how the vault is then decrypted, and users provisioned by CSV invite.

5 — SSO with named identity providers (Entra ID, Okta, Google) documented with how the vault key is derived or released, SCIM or directory sync for provisioning and deprovisioning, and MFA including FIDO2 or hardware keys.

8 — SSO unlock designed so the vendor cannot derive the vault key and stated so, group sync driving vault permissions, automated suspension on deprovisioning, conditional access or device policies, and passkeys stored and used across platforms.

10 — Identity is integrated without trust shortcuts: the SSO key model published and independently reviewed, deprovisioning that revokes vault access and shared items immediately with a log entry, passwordless vault unlock with passkeys, and support for the customer's own key-management or trusted-device approval.

Report an error

The CISO

Two-factor authentication is documented as a code sent to a separate user device, with SRP 6A handling login; we found no public information on single sign-on with Entra ID, Okta or Google, on how an SSO login would decrypt a vault, on directory sync or provisioning of joiners and leavers, on FIDO2 hardware keys, or on passkeys. Without SSO with a documented key model, this vault cannot join the corporate identity stack. 3 4

Report an error

Audit logs, policies & reporting

How this is scored

What an administrator and an auditor can see and enforce: event logs of access and changes, password health and breach reports, enforceable policies (master password, MFA, sharing, export), SIEM integration, and reports an ISO 27001 or NIS2 audit can use.

0 — No audit log and no admin policies; the administrator sees a user list.

3 — A basic activity list and a password-strength score, but no exportable log, no enforceable policies, and no record of who viewed or copied a shared credential.

5 — Event logs covering logins, item access, sharing and admin changes, exportable or available through an API, enforceable policies for master password and MFA, and password health and breach-monitoring reports.

8 — Native SIEM integration with named targets (Splunk, Microsoft Sentinel, Elastic or syslog), policies for sharing, export and browser-extension behaviour, log retention stated, and compliance reports aligned to ISO 27001, NIS2 or BSI IT-Grundschutz.

10 — Auditability is complete: every view, copy, autofill and permission change logged with user and device, logs tamper-evident and retained for a configurable period, alerting on anomalous access, and an auditor role that can read logs without access to secrets.

Report an error

The CISO

The history log is immutable and records edits, shares and old versions per shared item, which is a genuine activity record. We found no public information on exportable or API-accessible event logs, enforceable policies for master password, MFA, sharing or export, password health or breach reports, SIEM integration, or any record of who viewed or copied a shared credential. For an ISO 27001 or NIS2 audit I would have nothing to hand the auditor. 5

Report an error

Hosting choice, offline access & export

How this is scored

Where and how the vault runs and how the data leaves it: cloud region choice, a self-hosted or on-premises option, offline access during a vendor outage, client coverage across operating systems and browsers, and a complete, documented export and import path.

0 — Cloud only in an unstated region, no offline access, and no export or an export that drops attachments and shared items.

3 — Cloud with a region named, apps for common platforms, and an export in CSV only that leaves out attachments, folders, TOTP seeds or custom fields.

5 — An EU region or self-hosted option, offline read access on desktop and mobile, clients for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android and the major browsers, and an export that covers all item types including attachments.

8 — Both EU cloud and self-hosted or on-premises deployment documented, a status page with incident history, encrypted full-fidelity export and import from named competitors, and vault access continuing during an outage of the vendor's service.

10 — The customer can run and leave the vault on their own terms: self-hosting with documented high availability and backup, an open or documented export format that preserves structure, permissions and history, and a stated procedure for continued access if the vendor ends the service.

Report an error

The CISO

Hosting is named — Google Cloud Platform in Belgium — a self-hosted Kubernetes option is referenced for enterprise licensing, and export is available at any time including a read-only frozen state of at least six months after payment stops. However, we found no public information on desktop clients, offline access during a vendor outage, a status page with incident history, or the export's format and whether it covers attachments, folders or TOTP seeds. The frozen-state export clause is the one commitment here I would write into the contract. 1 2 4

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where vault data and metadata are hosted, and who the subprocessors are. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; end-to-end encryption narrows what a foreign authority could compel, but metadata, logs and the update channel for the client software remain in the vendor's hands, so the chain still counts.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, and subprocessors unnamed.

3 — An EU data region offered while the contracting entity and parent are non-EU without a stated safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.

5 — EU hosting as standard or selectable and an EU contracting entity, but the parent company or parts of the chain (support, analytics, email, client distribution) are non-EU.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations, a DPA covering vault metadata and logs, and a self-hosted option that removes the vendor from the data path.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, certifications published (ISO 27001, BSI C5 or equivalent), and source code or builds verifiable so the client update channel is not a blind trust in the vendor.

Report an error

The CISO

The vendor's pages state a Lithuanian contracting entity (UAB PassCamp, Kaunas), data on servers in the European Union hosted on Google Cloud Platform in Belgium, and customer support and email services hosted primarily in Lithuania. The independently sourced sovereignty attributes return unknowns for jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessors, so the captured pages give different pictures of the chain, and we found no public information on the parent company, a subprocessor list with locations, a DPA covering metadata and logs, or published certifications. The links I can see are European; the chain above them is dark. 2 4

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per user and tier, which features (SSO, SCIM, SIEM, self-hosting) sit in which tier, minimum seats, add-ons, and the minimum term.

0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.

3 — A starting price exists, but which business features (SSO, SCIM, audit logs) sit in which tier is unclear — the invoice is unknowable.

5 — Per-user tier prices public with the main features per tier, but at least one commonly needed piece (SSO, SIEM integration, self-hosting, minimum seats) is unpriced or "on request".

8 — Every tier priced publicly with its feature set and seat minimum, add-on prices listed, self-hosted licensing stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.

10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of users, with every add-on, self-hosting licence, support level and renewal condition published.

Report an error

The CISO

The captured pages promote enterprise licensed software, white-label offerings and standalone hosting, but we found no public information on prices, tiers, which business features sit in which tier, seat minimums, or minimum terms. Every business purchase here begins as a sales conversation, and I cannot put an unbudgetable line item in front of finance. 1

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

Questions about PassCamp

Is PassCamp European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where PassCamp is based.

Where does PassCamp store data?

The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention the EU as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 20 Oct 2026.

Does PassCamp have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to PassCamp?

As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Password Depot (3.5/5), Keeper (3/5) and Passbolt (3/5) highest among the other 18 Password Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Password Depot (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: PassCamp alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about PassCamp? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (5)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page passcamp.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage passcamp.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage passcamp.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Encryption model & independent audits — found from sitemap www.passcamp.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Sharing, roles & recovery — found from sitemap www.passcamp.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →