Keycloak vs authentik (2026)
A side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, licensing, and self-hosting.
Keycloak vs authentik
Bottom line: choose Keycloak for maximum enterprise protocol coverage and a decade of proven deployments; choose authentik if you want the same fundamental capabilities with a dramatically shorter time-to-configured.
Keycloak is a CNCF-incubating project with Red Hat backing that has been running in regulated-industry production environments since 2013. Its Java/Quarkus stack handles high availability via Infinispan clustering, supports the full breadth of LDAP/AD federation, SAML 2.0, OIDC, and UMA 2.0, and integrates deeply with enterprise middleware. The trade-off is operational weight: the JVM demands at least 1–2 GB per node, cold-start times are measured in seconds rather than milliseconds, and first-time configuration across realms, clients, and mappers has a steep learning curve.
authentik is a Python/Django identity provider launched in 2019 with a visual flow designer at its center. The same OIDC, SAML 2.0, LDAP, and RADIUS protocols are all present, but configuration happens through a drag-and-drop stage pipeline rather than deeply nested XML-style screens. Developers who are not identity specialists consistently report getting authentik running with a working SSO flow in under an hour. The MIT community edition is free with no user limits; enterprise audit logs and support require a paid license.
When Keycloak wins: existing Red Hat/Kubernetes infrastructure, requirements for UMA 2.0 fine-grained authorization, organizations with dedicated Java ops teams, or integrations that rely on mature Keycloak-specific client adapters.
When authentik wins: teams moving off Auth0 that want to self-host but can't absorb a Keycloak learning spike, smaller organizations with generalist DevOps, and any setup where fast iteration on auth flows matters more than maximum federation breadth.
Keycloak
Battle-tested open-source identity and access management with SSO, OIDC, and SAML.
Pros
- Apache-2.0 licensed — completely free with no seat or MAU limits
- CNCF-incubating project with Red Hat backing and a decade of production hardening
- Supports every major enterprise federation protocol (LDAP, AD, SAML, OIDC)
Cons
- Java-based stack is resource-heavy and slow to cold-start compared to modern alternatives
- Admin UI and realm configuration have a steep learning curve
authentik
Modern open-source identity provider with a clean UI, supporting SSO, OIDC, SAML, and LDAP.
Pros
- Significantly friendlier admin UX than Keycloak — less XML, no realm mental model
- MIT-licensed community edition is free with no MAU or seat limits
- Flow designer makes custom authentication logic accessible without Java extensions
Cons
- Enterprise features (audit logs, support SLAs) require a paid license
- Smaller ecosystem of community guides compared to Keycloak
Keycloak vs authentik: spec comparison
| Spec | Keycloak | authentik |
|---|---|---|
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT / Open-core |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Starting price | Free / self-host | Free / self-host |
| Pricing model | open-source | open-core |
| Language | Java | Python |
| Platforms | self-hosted, docker, kubernetes | self-hosted, docker, kubernetes |
| Founded | 2013 | 2019 |
| GitHub stars | 23,500 | 14,200 |
More Authentication & Identity →
FAQ
Keycloak vs authentik: which is better?
Neither is universally better. Keycloak (Free / self-host) suits Enterprise teams and regulated industries that need full IAM control on their own infrastructure and don't want vendor bills.; authentik (Free / self-host) suits Teams migrating off Auth0 that want Keycloak's capabilities but a much faster setup experience.. The spec table above breaks down the differences.
Is Keycloak or authentik cheaper?
Both start at the same price (Free / self-host).