I'm on the bandwagon of not hosting it myself. It really breaks down to a level of commitment & surface area issue for me.

Commitment: I know my server OS isn't setup as well as it could be for mission critical software/uptime. I'm a hobbiest with limited time to spend on this hobby and I can't spend 100hrs getting it all right.

Surface Area: I host a bunch of non mission critical services on one server and if I was hosting a password manager it would also be on that server. So I have a very large attack surface area and a weakness in one of those could result in all my passwords & more stored in the manager being exposed.

So I don't trust my own OS to be fully secure and I don't trust the other services and my configurations of them to be secure either. Given that any compromise of my password manager would be devastating. I let someone else host it.

I've seen that in the occassional cases when password managers have been compromised, the attacker only ends up with non encrypted user data & encrypted passwords. The encrypted passwords are practically unbreakable. The services also hire professionals who host and work in hosting for a living. And usually have better data siloing than I can afford.

All that to say I use bitwarden. It is an open source system which has plenty of security built into the model so even if compromised I don't think my passwords are at risk. And I believe they are more well equipped to ensure that data is being managed well.