Keycloak vs Zitadel
- 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.
The honest comparison
Keycloak and Zitadel score 4.2 and 4.0, and both answer the same question: how do you run a capable identity provider without per-user licensing.
Keycloak is the incumbent. A CNCF project sponsored by Red Hat, free under Apache 2.0, supporting OIDC and SAML with an extension model that lets you customize authentication flows, storage, and protocol mappers almost without limit. Commercial support exists through the Red Hat build and third parties. The trade is weight: a large configuration surface, meaningful upgrade planning, and an architecture that predates the API-first expectation.
Zitadel is the modern take. Open core, API-first, multi-tenant by design, with passkeys and an event-sourced audit trail as defaults rather than add-ons, plus a managed cloud with published pricing if you would rather not operate it. It is younger, with a smaller ecosystem and fewer people who have hit your problem before.
When Keycloak wins
- You need the most mature, widely deployed open-source identity provider available
- Deep customization through the extension model, including custom authentication flows and user storage
- Commercial support with SLAs matters, available through the Red Hat build
- Complex SAML federation requirements alongside modern protocols
- A large community and a decade of documented answers to operational problems
When Zitadel wins
- Multi-tenancy is a first-class requirement rather than something you model yourself
- API-first management fits how your team works, with configuration as code rather than console clicks
- Passkeys and a strong audit trail as defaults rather than configuration projects
- You want a managed cloud option with transparent pricing as an escape from self-hosting
- Smaller operational footprint matters more than ecosystem depth
Pricing
Keycloak is free under Apache 2.0 with no licence cost at any scale; you pay for infrastructure and for commercial support if you want SLAs. Zitadel is open source and free to self-host, with a managed cloud on a transparent published model including a free tier, and paid enterprise self-host support.
The real number in both cases is operations. An identity provider outage is a full outage, so budget an owner, an upgrade cadence, and a tested restore path. Model it honestly against managed alternatives with the TCO calculator.
Verdict
For maximum maturity, ecosystem, and the option of vendor-supported distribution, Keycloak. For a modern, multi-tenant, API-first identity provider with passkeys by default and a managed cloud available, Zitadel. See FusionAuth vs Keycloak, SuperTokens vs FusionAuth, and the open source vendor category.
Frequently asked questions
- Is Keycloak still the default open-source IdP?
- Yes, by deployment count and ecosystem breadth. It is a CNCF project sponsored by Red Hat, has extensive documentation, a large community, and an extension model that lets you customize almost anything. The cost of that maturity is architectural weight and an upgrade cadence that requires attention.
- What does Zitadel do better?
- Multi-tenancy and defaults. Zitadel was designed as multi-tenant from the start, exposes everything through an API rather than an admin console first, and ships passkeys and an event-sourced audit trail as defaults rather than as configuration. It also offers a managed cloud, which Keycloak does not have as a first-party option.
- Can we get commercial support for Keycloak?
- Yes. Red Hat build of Keycloak provides a supported distribution with SLAs, and several third parties offer support and managed hosting. That is a meaningful difference from projects with no commercial path, and it is often what makes Keycloak acceptable in regulated environments.
- Which is less work to operate?
- Zitadel, generally, and more so if you take the managed cloud. Self-hosted, both need database operations, upgrade planning, and availability engineering for a component that gates every login. Keycloak's larger footprint and configuration surface make its upgrades more involved, though its documentation and community answers are also deeper.
Related on Start with Identity
- CVEKeycloak accepts SAML from a disabled identity provider
A remote attacker can complete a broker login with a valid SAML response even after the SAML IdP is disabled in Keycloak. Unauthorized authentication via a cont
- CVEKeycloak Admin API auth bypass to custom attributes
Keycloak's Admin API let a caller read sensitive custom attributes they should not have seen (CWE-266). An authorization hole on the admin plane.
- CVEKeycloak authorization bypass
Keycloak failed an authorization check, so a caller could reach a resource their role should have blocked. Part of the April 2024 RHSA-2024:1868 set with CVE-20
- VendorAuth.js (NextAuth.js)
strong
- VendorAuthelia
niche
- VendorAuthentik
strong
Last updated 2026-08-29
Independent, community-driven analysis. No vendor sponsorship. Compiled from public research and community input and verified on a best-effort basis, so details may be incomplete or out of date. Scores are opinions, not advice. Trademarks belong to their owners; mention does not imply affiliation or endorsement. See the full disclaimer, or send corrections to [email protected].