maratoolbcrypt vs SHA-256 for passwords
A side-by-side comparison of Bcrypt Generator and Generate MD5 SHA-256 Hash Online.
bcrypt and SHA-256 are both one-way functions, but only one is built for passwords. SHA-256 is a fast, general-purpose hash designed to verify file integrity in microseconds — exactly the property that makes it catastrophic for passwords. A modern GPU rig can brute-force billions of SHA-256 candidates per second.
bcrypt is deliberately slow. Its cost factor (rounds) doubles the work for each increment, so a cost of 12 is 2¹² = 4096 internal iterations. It also embeds a per-password salt, defeating rainbow tables. SHA-256 has neither property by default.
When to use Bcrypt Generator
Use the bcrypt generator any time you need to store a user-supplied password or any secret that humans will recall. Pick a cost factor that takes ~250–500ms on your hardware (typically 12–14 in 2026). Re-hash on login if the stored cost is below your current target.
When to use Generate MD5 SHA-256 Hash Online
Use the hash generator for non-secret integrity checks: file fingerprints, ETags, deduplication keys, cache busting, Git-style content addressing. SHA-256 is also fine for HMAC constructions where the key (not the input) is the secret.
Side-by-side comparison
| Bcrypt Generator | Generate MD5 SHA-256 Hash Online | |
|---|---|---|
| Designed for | Password storage | Integrity / general hashing |
| Speed | Intentionally slow (~250ms) | Microseconds per hash |
| Cost tunable | Yes (cost factor, 4–31) | No (fixed algorithm) |
| Salt | Built-in, per password | Must be added manually |
| Output length | 60 characters (base64 w/ params) | 64 hex characters |
| GPU resistance | Moderate (memory-light) | None (GPU-friendly) |
| Reversible by design | No | No |
| Right tool for passwords | Yes | No — never |
Bottom line
Use bcrypt for passwords, SHA-256 for everything else. If you are storing SHA-256 password hashes today, plan a migration on next login.
Frequently asked questions
Does bcrypt use SHA-256 internally?
No — bcrypt is built on a modified Blowfish key schedule (the EksBlowfish setup), not SHA. The slowness comes from the expensive key setup, repeated 2^cost times.
Can I just SHA-256 with a salt and many iterations?
That is essentially PBKDF2, which is acceptable but weaker than bcrypt against GPU attacks. If you cannot use bcrypt, prefer Argon2id over hand-rolled PBKDF2.
What cost factor should I use?
Aim for ~250–500ms per hash on your production hardware. In 2026, cost 12 is a reasonable floor; cost 13–14 is better if you can afford the CPU. Re-hash users on login when you raise the cost.
Is Argon2 better than bcrypt?
Argon2id is the current OWASP recommendation because it adds memory hardness on top of CPU cost, making GPU/ASIC attacks more expensive. bcrypt is still fine for new systems if Argon2 is not available in your stack.