Short answer: choose SecretShare for a simple hosted workflow with a fixed 150 MB limit. Evaluate Yopass when self-hosting, a CLI, streaming file encryption, multiple languages, or control over storage backends matters enough to operate the infrastructure.
Feature comparison
| Capability | SecretShare | Yopass |
|---|---|---|
| Encryption | Browser-side AES-GCM; fragment key | Browser-side OpenPGP; decryption key stays on the client |
| Accounts | No account required | No account or user-management requirement in the core project |
| Files | One file up to 150 MB, encrypted as one payload | File upload with streaming encryption; operator-configured limits and storage |
| Expiration | 1 hour, 24 hours, or 7 days | 1 hour, 1 day, or 1 week in the documented server configuration |
| Passphrase | Optional | Optional custom password protection |
| Operations | Ready-to-use hosted service | Open-source self-hosting, CLI, Redis or Memcached, plus disk or S3 file storage |
When SecretShare fits
SecretShare is suitable when a person wants to open a page, encrypt a short secret or small file, and send the result without deploying infrastructure. Its behavior is deliberately narrow: one record, one confirmed retrieval, a maximum seven-day lifetime, and no account history.
The recipient confirmation gate separates availability checks from consumption. That helps with link-preview bots, while the atomic claim prevents two confirmed retrievals from both receiving the ciphertext.
When Yopass fits
Yopass is designed for organizations that want operational control. Its official project documents container and Kubernetes deployment, Redis and Memcached backends, dedicated disk or S3 file storage, a command-line client, translations, monitoring, and a read-only deployment mode. It also supports streaming encryption for files.
Self-hosting changes the responsibility boundary. Your team must patch the application, secure TLS and storage, monitor availability, design backups carefully, and ensure expired records are cleaned up. The public demo explicitly recommends self-hosting for sensitive use.
Which approach is safer?
Safety depends on the deployment and threat model, not only the cipher name. A managed minimal service reduces operational work; a well-run self-hosted service provides infrastructure control. In both cases, the recipient endpoint, delivered browser code, full link, and optional passphrase remain important trust boundaries.
Sources and review basis
Yopass details were checked against the official Yopass project repository and documentation. Configuration and commercial features may change. Yopass is a trademark of its respective owner; this independent comparison is not an endorsement.
Prefer a ready-to-use encrypted handoff?
Try SecretShare