Learn how Better Auth and Hexclave 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
2 days agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v1.7.15License
MITRepository
better-auth
Last 30 days
Last commit
8 hours agoRepository age
3 yearsVersion
v1.0.135Self-hosted
YesRepository
hexclave/hexclave
Better Auth appears to have several advantages over Hexclave, particularly in popularity, growth and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Better Auth significantly outpaces Hexclave in community adoption with 30,553 stars compared to 6,883 stars on GitHub. This 4.4x difference suggests Better Auth has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Better Auth has 3,052 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Better Auth is growing faster, adding 391 stars in the last 30 days (+1.3%) against adding 23 stars for Hexclave (+0.3%). Better Auth is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Better Auth last updated 2 days ago and Hexclave 8 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Typescript, JSX, Next.js. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Better Auth uses Vue, SvelteKit, Nuxt.js, Tanstack Start, Remix while Hexclave leverages Bash.
Both projects started around the same time, with Better Auth beginning 2 years ago and Hexclave 3 years ago.
Better Auth is licensed under MIT, while Hexclave's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Authentication & SSO. However, they also have distinct specializations: Hexclave extends into Authorization & Permissions.
Hexclave 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
vs
vs