Learn how Hexclave 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.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
Self-hosted
Repository

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

Zitadel appears to have several advantages over Hexclave, particularly in popularity, growth, maturity and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Zitadel leads in popularity with 14,935 stars vs 6,847 stars for Hexclave. The 118% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Zitadel has 1,269 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Zitadel is growing faster, adding 299 stars in the last 30 days (+2%) against adding 5 stars for Hexclave (+0.1%). Zitadel is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Hexclave last updated 1 hour ago and Zitadel 2 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX, Next.js. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Zitadel leverages SCSS, Golang, Lua.
Zitadel has been in development longer, starting 6 years ago, compared to Hexclave which began 3 years ago. This 4.0-year head start suggests Zitadel may have more mature features and established processes.
Zitadel is licensed under AGPL-3.0, while Hexclave's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Authentication & SSO, Authorization & Permissions.
Both Hexclave 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