When comparing Passpack vs pass, the Slant community recommends pass for most people. In the question“What is the best cross-platform password manager?” pass is ranked 3rd while Passpack is ranked 22nd. The most important reason people chose pass is:
As it has both Git support and encrypts passwords to GPG-encrypted text files, it is really simple to access everywhere. You can either use a self-hosted or a personal cloud hosted Git repository. It is automatically being kept up-to-date. Clients for pretty much everything and a really active community. Even if you can't run a client you will still be able to access the password by decrypting them from the Git store.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Free for up to 100 passwords
After the 100 password threshold is passed, this service costs $1.50 per month for up to 1,000 passwords and 3 users. Plans can be expanded all the way to $40.00 per month with the capability to store 10,000 passwords and share with 1,000 users.
Pro Can create one time passwords
Passpack allows creating passwords for accessing the Passpack Vault that can only be used once. Great for accessing the Vault in public or untrusted places.
Pro Two-factor authentication
Passpack support two-factor authentication via e-mail or Yubikey.
Pro Encrypts user data before it reaches Passpack servers
Users are not at risk of having their passwords known by Passpack staff, as user data is encrypted before it reaches their servers.
Pro Compatible with most common browsers
Passpack is compatible with Chrome, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari.
Pro Username/password combinations can be shared with others
Passpack caters to teams by allowing them to easily share credentials with each other.
Pro Can import usernames and passwords from programs like Excel
For users who have already stored their username and password information in a spreadsheet, Passpack makes it easy to migrate all of the information at once. Additionally, Passpack lets users export their info as well.

Pro Ultra portable
As it has both Git support and encrypts passwords to GPG-encrypted text files, it is really simple to access everywhere. You can either use a self-hosted or a personal cloud hosted Git repository. It is automatically being kept up-to-date. Clients for pretty much everything and a really active community. Even if you can't run a client you will still be able to access the password by decrypting them from the Git store.

Pro Free and open source

Pro Works in command line
And is basically just a bunch of GPG-encrypted files stored in a folder.

Pro Full control
You are not forced to rely on any other service provider than yourself. Like saving them on a remote server as in the case of LastPass. You don't have to extend your trust (to LastPass or any other provider).
Pro Has cross platform GUI clients
It has a Qt-based GUI, an Android and iOS app, a Firefox plugin, a Golang GUI app, an interactive CUI, a dmenu script, OS X integration, and also an Emacs package.

Pro Not using a database
It doesn't use a database like, for example, KeePass and thus doesn't open all passwords at once. Just one at a time.
Pro Scripts for importing passwords from different services
Pro Has git support
Pro Allows storing password history
You can version-control the encrypted files using Git, which allows you to track all changes done.
Pro Adheres to Unix philosophy
Does one thing and does it well.
Pro Uses standard components
As GPG and Git are widely used, it relies on thoroughly tested and secure functionality.
Pro Multi user suppport
You and your team can share a repo and different subtrees can be encrypted for different sets of GPG ids.
Pro Support for extra functionality via plugins
For example the plugin "pass-extension-tail" makes it possible to only display the non-password parts of a password file, like the username or the name of the service the password is needed for, and without showing the password.
Pro Minimal
It's very easy to understand what the program does, why it's doing it, and how it's secure.
Cons
Con Limited by passwords
Con Clunky UI and sign up process
Con Lacks password auditing
Con Lacks native mobile apps
Con Does not support Opera
Con Not super user friendly
Might be a little too low-level (even with GUIs) for some teams of users.
Con Exposes the names of the sites
By default each file is named 'google.com.gpg' - so someone who steals your password directory would know every site you have accounts on.
Can be mitigated with plugins like Tomb, but a noteworthy caveat.
Con Not hosted = not accessible
As everything is stored locally, there's no way to access your passwords while on public computers, etc. without exposing your private key to the world. You'll have to manually enter your passwords while looking at your phone, etc.
Con Not ideal if you have to use Windows
While windows clients technically exist, this program is quite obviously aimed at UNIX-like systems. If you have to use Windows (eg. for work) then it'll be difficult to get everything set up properly.
Con No webapp for easy shared access
