Learn how Authgear and Zitadel differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these authentication & sso providers is best for you.
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
License
Self-hosted
Auto-fetched .

Auto-fetched .

Both Authgear and Zitadel have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Zitadel significantly outpaces Authgear in community adoption with 13,665 stars compared to 1,686 stars on GitHub. This 8.1x difference suggests Zitadel has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Zitadel has 1,048 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with Authgear last updated 1 day ago and Zitadel 22 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX, Golang. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Authgear uses Python while Zitadel leverages Next.js, SCSS, Lua.
Both projects started around the same time, with Authgear beginning 6 years ago and Zitadel 6 years ago.
The projects use different licenses: Authgear is licensed under Apache-2.0 while Zitadel uses AGPL-3.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Authentication & SSO. However, they also have distinct specializations: Authgear also focuses on Identity & Access Management (IAM) while Zitadel extends into Authorization & Permissions.
Both Authgear and Zitadel offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs