authentik vs ZITADEL
Both are alternatives to Auth0. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as ZITADEL vs authentik — same comparison, one verdict.
authentik and ZITADEL are closely matched on ownership (85 vs 82) — this one comes down to pricing and to which trade-offs below you can live with.
authentik
A modern, self-hostable identity provider with a flexible visual flow builder.
authentik is a self-hosted identity provider built around a visual 'flow' system that lets you customize login, enrollment, and recovery steps without deep protocol expertise. It supports OIDC, SAML, LDAP, SCIM, and social login, and ships as a straightforward Docker Compose or Helm deployment aimed at teams who want Keycloak-class capability with a friendlier setup experience.
ZITADEL
A cloud-native, API-first identity platform with a generous self-hosted core.
ZITADEL is a modern identity and access management platform built API-first for cloud-native and multi-tenant SaaS use cases. It supports OIDC, SAML, passkeys/WebAuthn, and fine-grained actions/hooks for customizing the auth flow in code, and offers both a managed cloud and a self-hostable core.
Side by side
10 points of comparison, every one read from a verified field. Green marks the side that wins a row outright. A dash means we do not hold that fact — never that it is zero.
| authentik | ZITADEL | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 85 | 82 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT (core); authentik/enterprise/ subdirectory carries its own separate license for paid enterprise features | AGPL-3.0 |
| Pricing | Free / self-host for the core MIT-licensed product; a hosted 'authentik Security' cloud offering and an Enterprise tier (support SLA, extra features under the separate enterprise/ license) are available paid. | Free / self-host under AGPL-3.0; ZITADEL Cloud offers a managed free tier plus paid usage-based plans for teams that don't want to run the server themselves. |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $15–25/mo, against Auth0 pricing that climbs steeply past the free tier | $24–40/mo plus Postgres, against Okta or Auth0 per-user pricing |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | Half a day for the server, longer per application you integrate | Half a day |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | Moderate, and the risk is concentrated: this is the front door to everything behind it. | Moderate. |
authentik edges it on the Sovereignty Score, but the right pick depends on the trade-offs below.
Weighing both against staying on Auth0? Is Auth0 free? What it actually costs →
authentik
Strengths
- +Genuinely MIT-licensed for the core product — no AGPL copyleft concerns for embedding or forking
- +Visual flow builder makes multi-step login/enrollment/recovery customization far more approachable than editing raw protocol config
- +Good out-of-box support for LDAP and SCIM alongside OIDC/SAML, useful for bridging older enterprise directories
- +Active, fast-moving project with frequent releases
Trade-offs
- −The enterprise/ directory ships under authentik's own separate license, not MIT — some advanced features are gated behind the paid tier even when self-hosting the core
- −Younger and smaller community than Keycloak, so fewer third-party guides and Stack Overflow answers exist for edge cases
- −Flow builder flexibility means misconfiguration is possible; production hardening still requires real identity-ops knowledge
ZITADEL
Strengths
- +Strong native support for passkeys/WebAuthn and modern passwordless flows out of the box
- +API-first design and 'Actions' hooks make custom auth logic (e.g. custom claims, external calls during login) straightforward without forking the codebase
- +Built for multi-tenancy (organizations/projects) from the ground up, closer to Auth0's B2B model than most self-hosted options
- +Active development with frequent releases and a responsive open-source community
Trade-offs
- −AGPL-3.0 requires that any modified version offered as a network service also be released under AGPL — a real legal consideration for SaaS companies embedding it
- −Younger project than Keycloak with a smaller track record at very large scale
- −Some advanced features are positioned toward the paid ZITADEL Cloud tier rather than the self-hosted core
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose authentik
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and genuinely MIT-licensed for the core product — no AGPL copyleft concerns for embedding or forking.
Choose ZITADEL
if strong native support for passkeys/WebAuthn and modern passwordless flows out of the box.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — the enterprise/ directory ships under authentik's own separate license, not MIT — some advanced features are gated behind the paid tier even when self-hosting the core, and aGPL-3.0 requires that any modified version offered as a network service also be released under AGPL — a real legal consideration for SaaS companies embedding it. If either of those is a dealbreaker for your team, the shortlist is wrong rather than the choice.
What it takes to run these yourself
Real requirements and honest running costs, not the vendor quickstart.
authentik vs ZITADEL — common questions
Is authentik a better fit than ZITADEL for authentication & identity?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: authentik scores 85 to ZITADEL's 82 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. ZITADEL earns its place on a different axis — strong native support for passkeys/WebAuthn and modern passwordless flows out of the box. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
authentik keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. ZITADEL is still self-hostable, so the files stay on your server either way — but it is not local-first by design, so check what its export produces before you rely on it.
Can I self-host authentik or ZITADEL?
Both can be self-hosted. The difference is what it costs you in time rather than whether it is possible — see the setup and maintenance rows above.
Are authentik and ZITADEL both alternatives to Auth0?
Yes — both appear in our Auth0 comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off Auth0 and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-07-14. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.