Keycloak vs SuperTokens
Both are alternatives to Auth0. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as SuperTokens vs Keycloak — same comparison, one verdict.
Both are authentication & identity tools with the same broad shape, but Keycloak scores 90 against SuperTokens's 80 on data ownership and exit cost — the gap is in how easily you could leave.
Keycloak
TOP PICKThe mature, CNCF-backed open-source identity and access management server.
Keycloak is a full-featured IAM server originally built by Red Bull's security team and now a CNCF Incubating project. It supports OIDC, OAuth2, and SAML, social and enterprise identity brokering, fine-grained authorization, and a built-in admin console, and it's the most widely deployed self-hosted alternative to Auth0/Okta in production today.
SuperTokens
A developer-friendly, self-hostable auth core built for fast integration into existing apps.
SuperTokens is an authentication solution built to drop into an existing app quickly, with official SDKs for popular frontend and backend frameworks and pre-built session-management, MFA, and passwordless flows. It ships a self-hostable core service plus a managed cloud option, aimed at teams that want Auth0-like integration speed without the recurring per-MAU cost.
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.
| Keycloak | SuperTokens | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 90 | 80 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 (core); ee/ subdirectory carries its own separate license for paid enterprise features |
| Pricing | Free / self-host (Docker image or standalone distribution); commercial support available via Red Hat build of Keycloak (RHBK) for enterprises that want a support contract. | Free / self-host for the Apache-2.0 core; a managed SuperTokens cloud and a paid Enterprise tier (SSO/SAML, advanced MFA policies under the ee/ license) are available for teams that want those features or don't want to self-host. |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 4 GB | — |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $24–40/mo plus a database, against Okta or Auth0 per-user pricing that becomes brutal above the free tier | — |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | A day to stand up, a week to configure realms and flows correctly | — |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | Moderate to high. It is enterprise software with an enterprise upgrade cadence and its own vocabulary. | — |
Keycloak is Macrostack's recommended Auth0 alternative, so it's our pick here.
Weighing both against staying on Auth0? Is Auth0 free? What it actually costs →
Keycloak
Strengths
- +Apache-2.0, fully open-source, no feature gating between a 'community' and 'enterprise' edition
- +Extremely mature — 10+ years in production at large scale, CNCF Incubating project with active governance
- +Broad protocol support (OIDC, SAML, OAuth2) and identity brokering to external IdPs out of the box
- +Large ecosystem of themes, extensions, and Kubernetes operators for production deployment
Trade-offs
- −Runs on the JVM — heavier resource footprint than lightweight Go-based alternatives, and the admin console/config model has a real learning curve
- −You own uptime, patching, and database backups for something security-critical — a genuine operational responsibility Auth0 absorbs for you
- −Theming the login UI to match a product's brand takes more custom work than Auth0's Universal Login customization
SuperTokens
Strengths
- +Genuinely permissive Apache-2.0 core license for self-hosting the base authentication service
- +SDK-first design with strong framework coverage makes initial integration noticeably faster than headless-only alternatives
- +Built-in session-management primitives (rotating refresh tokens, anti-CSRF) are handled for you rather than left to the integrator
- +Free self-hosted core has no MAU cap, unlike Auth0's metered model
Trade-offs
- −Enterprise SSO/SAML and some advanced MFA policies live behind the separately-licensed ee/ directory, not the free core — verify feature-tier fit before committing
- −Smaller community and third-party plugin ecosystem than Keycloak
- −Fewer built-in identity-brokering options (LDAP, legacy enterprise directories) than Keycloak or authentik out of the box
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose Keycloak
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and apache-2.0, fully open-source, no feature gating between a 'community' and 'enterprise' edition.
Choose SuperTokens
if genuinely permissive Apache-2.0 core license for self-hosting the base authentication service.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — runs on the JVM — heavier resource footprint than lightweight Go-based alternatives, and the admin console/config model has a real learning curve, and enterprise SSO/SAML and some advanced MFA policies live behind the separately-licensed ee/ directory, not the free core — verify feature-tier fit before committing. 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.
Keycloak vs SuperTokens — common questions
Is Keycloak a better fit than SuperTokens for authentication & identity?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: Keycloak scores 90 to SuperTokens's 80 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. SuperTokens earns its place on a different axis — genuinely permissive Apache-2.0 core license for self-hosting the base authentication service. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
Keycloak keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. SuperTokens 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 Keycloak or SuperTokens?
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 Keycloak and SuperTokens 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.