</>macrostackBrowse all
Head-to-head · Authentication & Identity

authentik vs ZITADEL

Both are alternatives to Auth0. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.

85

authentik

A modern, self-hostable identity provider with a flexible visual flow builder.

OPEN SOURCEMIT (core); authentik/enterprise/ subdirectory carries its own separate license for paid enterprise featuresSELF-HOSTLOCAL-FIRST

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.

82

ZITADEL

A cloud-native, API-first identity platform with a generous self-hosted core.

OPEN SOURCEAGPL-3.0SELF-HOSTLOCAL-FIRST

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

 authentikZITADEL
Sovereignty Score8582
Open sourceYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Local-firstYesYes
LicenseMIT (core); authentik/enterprise/ subdirectory carries its own separate license for paid enterprise featuresAGPL-3.0
PricingFree / 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.
The verdict

authentik edges it on the Sovereignty Score, but the right pick depends on the trade-offs below.

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
See all 5 Auth0 alternatives →

Facts verified 2026-07-14. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.

The Macrostack brief

New swaps, worth your inbox.

A short, occasional email when we add a high-intent alternative or ship a new head-to-head. No spam, no selling your address — unsubscribe in one click.