Learn how Hanko 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
Self-hosted
Auto-fetched .

Auto-fetched .

Zitadel appears to have several advantages over Hanko, particularly in popularity, maturity and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Zitadel leads in popularity with 13,621 stars vs 8,907 stars for Hanko. The 53% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Zitadel has 1,040 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with Hanko last updated 2 days ago and Zitadel 4 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX, Next.js, Golang. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Hanko uses Vue while Zitadel leverages SCSS, Lua.
Zitadel has been in development longer, starting 6 years ago, compared to Hanko which began 4 years ago. This 2.0-year head start suggests Zitadel may have more mature features and established processes.
Zitadel is licensed under AGPL-3.0, while Hanko's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Authentication & SSO. However, they also have distinct specializations: Zitadel extends into Authorization & Permissions.
Both Hanko 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