Learn how Pocket ID 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

Both Pocket ID and Zitadel have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Zitadel leads in popularity with 14,862 stars vs 9,028 stars for Pocket ID. The 65% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Zitadel has 1,248 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Pocket ID is growing faster, adding 238 stars in the last 30 days (+2.7%) against adding 304 stars for Zitadel (+2.1%). Pocket ID is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Pocket ID last updated 21 hours ago and Zitadel 14 hours ago.
Zitadel has been in development longer, starting 6 years ago, compared to Pocket ID which began 2 years ago. This 4.5-year head start suggests Zitadel may have more mature features and established processes.
Pocket ID uses the BSD-2-Clause license, which is more permissive than Zitadel's AGPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Authentication & SSO. However, they also have distinct specializations: Zitadel extends into Authorization & Permissions.
Both Pocket ID 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