ZITADEL vs SuperTokens
Both are alternatives to Auth0. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as SuperTokens vs ZITADEL — same comparison, one verdict.
ZITADEL and SuperTokens are closely matched on ownership (82 vs 80) — this one comes down to pricing and to which trade-offs below you can live with.
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.
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.
| ZITADEL | SuperTokens | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 82 | 80 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 (core); ee/ subdirectory carries its own separate license for paid enterprise features |
| Pricing | 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. | 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 Postgres, against Okta or Auth0 per-user pricing | — |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | Half a day | — |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | Moderate. | — |
ZITADEL 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 →
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
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 ZITADEL
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and strong native support for passkeys/WebAuthn and modern passwordless flows out of the box.
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 — 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, 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.
ZITADEL vs SuperTokens — common questions
Is ZITADEL a better fit than SuperTokens for authentication & identity?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: ZITADEL scores 82 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?
ZITADEL 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 ZITADEL 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 ZITADEL 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.