Learn how Keycloak 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
License
Self-hosted
Repository

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

Keycloak appears to have several advantages over Zitadel, particularly in popularity and maturity. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Keycloak leads in popularity with 36,886 stars vs 15,065 stars for Zitadel. The 145% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Keycloak has 8,945 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Keycloak and Zitadel are moving at much the same rate, adding 568 stars and adding 254 stars respectively over the last 30 days (+1.6% vs +1.7%). Neither is pulling away from the other on momentum alone.
Both projects show recent activity, with Keycloak last updated 21 hours ago and Zitadel 2 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Keycloak uses Python, C, Java while Zitadel leverages Next.js, SCSS, Golang, Lua.
Keycloak has been in development longer, starting 13 years ago, compared to Zitadel which began 7 years ago. This 6.8-year head start suggests Keycloak may have more mature features and established processes.
The projects use different licenses: Keycloak 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, Authorization & Permissions.
Both Keycloak 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
vs
vs