Comparison · Open-Source IAM
Keycloak vs Zitadel
CapabilityKeycloakZitadel
Overall4.2 4.0
- Authentication
- 4.5
- 4.5
- SSO & Federation
- 4.5
- 4.0
- Authorization
- 4.0
- 4.0
- Lifecycle & Provisioning
- 3.5
- 3.5
- MFA & Passwordless
- 4.0
- 4.5
- Governance & Audit
- 3.5
- 4.0
- Developer Experience
- 3.5
- 4.5
- Deployment Flexibility
- 5.0
- 4.5
- Pricing Transparency
- 5.0
- 4.5
- Support & Ecosystem
- 3.5
- 3.0
Scored 0–5 against a published rubric. Bold marks the higher score. Independent analysis, no vendor sponsorship.
At a glance
Both are open-source identity providers you can self-host, but they sit a generation apart. Keycloak is the established standard, battle-tested across countless deployments, with the largest ecosystem and the most extension points. Zitadel is newer, built cloud-native with multi-tenancy, an event-sourced core, and a managed cloud offering for teams that do not want to operate it.
When Keycloak wins
- You want the most mature option with the widest community and integration ecosystem
- You need deep customization through SPIs and themes
- You have the operational capacity to run and tune it
When Zitadel wins
- You want modern architecture, native multi-tenancy, and a clean API
- You prefer the option of a managed cloud rather than self-hosting everything
- You are starting fresh and value developer experience over ecosystem size
Bottom line
Keycloak is the safe, proven default if you can operate it. Zitadel is the modern pick when multi-tenancy, a managed option, or a cleaner developer experience matter more than ecosystem maturity.