CookieVault vs Cookie-Editor
TL;DR: CookieVault and Cookie-Editor are both modern Manifest V3 cookie editors. CookieVault is MIT-licensed with optional end-to-end encrypted sync, profiles, and history; Cookie-Editor is a closed-source, local-only tool with a smaller footprint. Pick on transparency and sync versus minimalism.
CookieVault vs Cookie-Editor is a comparison between two actively maintained Manifest V3 cookie editors that differ mainly on licensing transparency and feature breadth. CookieVault is a free, MIT-licensed cookie manager with optional encrypted cross-device sync, while Cookie-Editor (developed by Moustachauve) is a free, closed-source, local-only editor known for a clean popup and a small install size. Unlike comparisons against removed extensions, this is not a safe-versus-unsafe decision — both tools work today — so the page focuses on the honest tradeoffs between them.
Both are current Manifest V3 tools
In short: Cookie-Editor is a legitimate, well-maintained Manifest V3 extension, not a deprecated or removed one. The comparison is about which feature and licensing model fits you, not about which is safe to install.
It is worth stating plainly up front: Cookie-Editor is a good extension. It is built on Manifest V3, so it is unaffected by the Chrome MV2 sunset that removed EditThisCookie and disabled Cookie AutoDelete. It has a clean, fast popup, broad browser coverage, and no history of store-removal incidents. Per CookieVault’s editorial policy, we compare against it on the merits and credit its strengths rather than manufacturing weaknesses.
Both CookieVault Editor and Cookie-Editor use the official chrome.cookies API and ship across Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and other Chromium browsers. So the manifest-version axis that decides comparisons against EditThisCookie and Cookie AutoDelete is a tie here. What remains are two real differences: how the code is licensed, and how much the tool does beyond a single-device editor.
Licensing and source transparency
In short: CookieVault is MIT-licensed with reproducible builds; Cookie-Editor is closed proprietary. This is a transparency difference, not a security accusation — closed source does not mean unsafe, but it does mean you cannot independently audit the binary.
The clearest difference is licensing. CookieVault publishes its full source — Editor, Guardian, sync server, and website — under the MIT license, and ships reproducible Chrome Web Store builds, meaning an independent reviewer can rebuild the package from a tagged commit and confirm it is byte-identical to what users download. Cookie-Editor is distributed free of charge but as closed proprietary software; its source is not published for independent audit.
To be fair and precise: closed source is not the same as untrustworthy. Plenty of reputable software is proprietary, and Cookie-Editor has earned its reputation. The distinction is that with CookieVault you can verify the cookie-handling boundary yourself or hire someone to, whereas with any closed-source extension — Cookie-Editor included — you are extending trust to the publisher rather than verifying. For some users that audit capability matters; for others it does not, and that is a legitimate position.
Sync, profiles, and history
In short: CookieVault adds end-to-end encrypted cross-device sync, multi-account profiles, and cookie history with undo on its Pro tier. Cookie-Editor is local-only by design, which keeps it lean but means each device is managed separately.
CookieVault’s optional Pro tier adds capabilities Cookie-Editor does not target. End-to-end encrypted sync derives the encryption key on your device from a passphrase only you know, so the same cookie set and settings appear on your laptop, work machine, and home desktop while the server stores only ciphertext it cannot read. Named profiles let you keep separate cookie environments — for example, distinct logins for testing — and cookie history with undo lets you roll a cookie back one click at a time.
Cookie-Editor deliberately stays out of this territory, and that is a coherent design choice rather than a missing feature. A local-only editor needs no account, no server, and no crypto library, which is exactly why its install is smaller and its mental model simpler. If you only ever manage cookies on one machine and prefer never to create an account, the CookieVault Pro features are overhead you would not use.
Feature-by-feature comparison
In short: The two match on the core editing workflow and on Manifest V3 currency. They diverge on licensing transparency, install size, and the sync/profiles/history layer.
The table compares the two across the dimensions that actually distinguish them. Where Cookie-Editor leads, the table says so.
| Criterion | CookieVault Editor | Cookie-Editor |
|---|---|---|
| Manifest version | V3 (current) | V3 (current) |
| Active maintenance | Yes | Yes |
| Store-removal history | None | None |
| License | MIT (open source) | Closed proprietary |
| Reproducible store build | Yes | No |
| Public maintainer identity | Yes | Yes (Moustachauve) |
| Per-site cookie editor popup | Yes | Yes |
| Add / edit / delete cookies | Yes | Yes |
| Search / filter cookies | Yes | Yes |
| Bulk JSON export / import | Yes | Yes |
| End-to-end encrypted sync | Yes (Pro) | No |
| Multi-account profiles | Yes (Pro) | No |
| Cookie history / undo | Yes (Pro) | No |
| Telemetry SDKs | None | None known |
| Account required | No (only for sync) | No |
| Approx. packed install size | ~480 KB | ~120 KB |
| Firefox / Chromium browser support | Yes | Yes |
The honest summary: if you weigh source-code auditability and the encrypted-sync feature set highly, CookieVault is the fit. If you weigh a minimal footprint and an account-free, single-device experience highly, Cookie-Editor is the fit. Neither answer is wrong.
When Cookie-Editor is the better choice
There are real, honest reasons to prefer Cookie-Editor:
- You want the smallest possible install and value the lighter footprint.
- You only manage cookies on a single device and have no use for cross-device sync.
- You prefer a tool that never asks you to create an account or consider a Pro tier.
- You are happy extending trust to a well-regarded proprietary publisher and do not need to audit the source yourself.
- You already use Cookie-Editor, your workflow is stable, and nothing about it is broken.
When CookieVault is the better choice
CookieVault fits a different set of priorities:
- You want MIT-licensed source you (or a security reviewer) can actually audit.
- You want reproducible builds that prove the shipped binary matches that source.
- You want cookies and settings synced across devices through end-to-end encryption.
- You manage multiple cookie environments and want named profiles.
- You want cookie history with one-click undo for accidental changes.
- You want a tool whose source transparency would let the community catch a future ownership change, after seeing what an opaque transfer did to EditThisCookie.
How to try CookieVault alongside Cookie-Editor
You do not have to commit blindly — run both and compare. The ordered steps:
- Keep Cookie-Editor installed; nothing here uninstalls it.
- Install CookieVault Editor from the Chrome Web Store (or the Edge / Firefox add-on sites; side-load the signed CRX for Opera / Vivaldi / Arc / Brave).
- In Cookie-Editor, export the cookies for a site you work with as JSON.
- In CookieVault, choose Settings → Import → JSON and load that file.
- Confirm the cookies appear with correct domains, values, and flags.
- Compare the two popups on the same site to judge which workflow you prefer.
- If you want sync, enable it under CookieVault Settings → Sync and add a second device.
- Keep whichever tool fits — or keep both; they coexist without conflict.
See also
- Cookie-Editor alternative — full comparison
- CookieVault vs EditThisCookie
- EditThisCookie alternative
- CookieVault Editor
- Encrypted cloud sync
- How to export cookies as JSON