Learn how Better Auth and Hanko 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.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
Self-hosted
Repository

Both Better Auth and Hanko have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Better Auth significantly outpaces Hanko in community adoption with 30,026 stars compared to 9,034 stars on GitHub. This 3.3x difference suggests Better Auth has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Better Auth has 2,897 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Better Auth is growing faster, adding 409 stars in the last 30 days (+1.4%) against adding 25 stars for Hanko (+0.3%). Better Auth is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Better Auth last updated 19 hours ago and Hanko 2 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Typescript, JSX, Next.js, Vue. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Better Auth uses SvelteKit, Nuxt.js, Tanstack Start, Remix while Hanko leverages Bash, Golang.
Hanko has been in development longer, starting 5 years ago, compared to Better Auth which began 2 years ago. This 2.2-year head start suggests Hanko may have more mature features and established processes.
Better Auth is licensed under MIT, while Hanko's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Authentication & SSO. However, they also have distinct specializations: Better Auth also focuses on Identity & Access Management (IAM).
Hanko provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Better Auth may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs