Authentik vs Keycloak: Choosing a Self-Hosted Identity Provider (2026)
Both Authentik and Keycloak provide enterprise-grade single sign-on, OIDC, SAML, and MFA for self-hosted application stacks. Both are serious identity providers — not lightweight utilities. The difference is philosophy: Authentik is built for modern DevOps teams who want something that works out of the box; Keycloak is the battle-tested choice for enterprise environments that need maximum protocol coverage and production history going back a decade.
TL;DR comparison
| Dimension | Authentik | Keycloak |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT (core) + Enterprise edition | Apache-2.0 |
| Backed by | Authentik Security (commercial) | Red Hat / IBM |
| Language / runtime | Python + Go | Java (Quarkus) |
| Idle RAM | ~600 MB | ~1.5 GB |
| Setup complexity | Moderate (clean Docker Compose) | High (realm/client model, steep learning curve) |
| OIDC | Yes | Yes |
| SAML 2.0 | Yes | Yes |
| LDAP | Yes (provider and source) | Yes (user federation) |
| Passkeys | Yes (native) | Yes (Keycloak 22+, via WebAuthn) |
| Social login | Yes (30+ providers) | Yes (via social identity providers) |
| UI style | Modern, clean | Functional, dense |
| Production deployments | Growing fast | Massive (decades of enterprise use) |
| Minimum Liquid Web VPS | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Winner | RAM, ease of setup, modern UI | Battle-tested history, enterprise support, community size |
Setup complexity
Authentik ships a Docker Compose file with four services: a PostgreSQL database, Redis, the Authentik server, and a background worker. Initial setup — creating an admin account, configuring your first application provider (OIDC or SAML), and connecting Coolify or Outline — takes about 30–45 minutes for a developer who has not used Authentik before. The flow creation UI (for enrollment, password recovery, and MFA) uses a visual pipeline builder that is intuitive once you understand that flows are sequences of stages.
Keycloak uses a realm/client model that has more moving parts. A realm is an isolated namespace for users and applications; a client is an application registered within that realm. The admin UI exposes dozens of configuration panels per client: mapper configurations, protocol settings, client scopes, fine-grained permissions. For a developer configuring Keycloak for the first time, plan 2–4 hours to get a basic OIDC integration working correctly. The model is powerful — it is also genuinely complex.
Winner: Authentik. Faster to first working SSO integration. Keycloak's complexity is justified for organizations with complex protocol requirements; it is overhead for teams that need basic SSO.
RAM footprint
Measured idle on fresh Docker Compose deployments with no active sessions:
| Tool | Idle RAM |
|---|---|
| Authentik (server + worker + PostgreSQL + Redis) | ~600 MB |
| Keycloak (single node + PostgreSQL) | ~1.5 GB |
Keycloak's Java runtime (Quarkus) accounts for most of the footprint. JVM startup is also slower than Authentik's Python/Go stack — Keycloak takes 60–90 seconds to reach healthy status after docker compose up.
Winner: Authentik. 2.5× lighter at idle. On a 2 GB VPS, Authentik leaves room for other services; Keycloak on a 2 GB VPS will be memory-constrained.
Protocol and feature coverage
Both tools cover the protocols that matter for most self-hosted stacks:
| Protocol | Authentik | Keycloak |
|---|---|---|
| OIDC / OAuth 2.0 | Yes | Yes |
| SAML 2.0 | Yes | Yes |
| LDAP (source) | Yes | Yes (user federation) |
| LDAP (provider) | Yes | Yes |
| SCIM | Yes (v2023.6+) | Yes (Keycloak 24+) |
| WebAuthn / Passkeys | Yes (native, first-class) | Yes (Keycloak 22+) |
| Social login | Yes (30+ built-in) | Yes (requires IdP configuration) |
| RADIUS | Yes (enterprise only) | Via third-party extension |
Keycloak's advantage is protocol depth in edge cases: fine-grained authorization services, token exchange, client-initiated backchannel authentication (CIBA), and the ability to implement highly custom claim mappers via Java SPI extensions. These are enterprise requirements that most self-hosters never encounter.
Authentik's advantage is developer ergonomics: passkeys work without configuration gymnastics, social login providers require minimal setup, and the outpost system (for forward auth with Nginx, Traefik, or Caddy) is straightforward.
Backing and long-term risk
Authentik is developed by Authentik Security, a commercial company that offers an enterprise edition with additional features (RADIUS, premium support, SCIM provisioning). The MIT-licensed core covers the needs of most self-hosters. The company's commercial model provides funding stability without requiring users to purchase a license.
Keycloak is backed by Red Hat (IBM). It has been in production in enterprise environments for over a decade, powers identity for major financial institutions and governments, and has a large global community of contributors. Red Hat's commercial JBoss SSO is built on Keycloak. The production history and enterprise pedigree are Keycloak's strongest arguments.
Risk assessment: Authentik is newer and has less production history. Keycloak's risk is complexity and Java's operational weight — not project longevity.
Which should you choose?
Choose Authentik if:
- You are configuring SSO for the first time and want a faster path to working integrations
- RAM is a constraint (2 GB VPS, shared infrastructure)
- You want native passkey support without additional configuration
- Your stack is modern (Coolify, Outline, Gitea, Plane, Nextcloud) and you want a clean integration story
- A modern UI and active community are priorities
Choose Keycloak if:
- Your organization requires battle-tested identity infrastructure with enterprise support options
- You need advanced protocol features (CIBA, fine-grained authorization, custom Java SPI extensions)
- Existing enterprise tooling expects Keycloak (Red Hat ecosystem, specific SAML configurations)
- Long production history in regulated industries matters to your security team
- You have the operational capacity to manage a Java/JVM service
Authentik has a setup guide on this site:
There is no automated migration tool. Both platforms support LDAP as a user source, so if your users are in an LDAP/Active Directory, both can connect to the same directory. For local users, migration requires a manual export from Keycloak (user data via REST API) and import into Authentik via its API. Application registrations (OIDC clients, SAML providers) must be recreated. Plan for a careful cutover, application by application, with parallel operation during transition.
Yes. The core Authentik installation is MIT-licensed — you can use it in commercial environments without purchasing a license. The Enterprise edition (paid) adds RADIUS support, dedicated support SLAs, and a few compliance features. For most self-hosted stacks — SSO, MFA, OIDC/SAML for internal tools — the MIT core covers everything you need at no cost.
Both Authentik and Keycloak work with any OIDC-compatible application, which includes Coolify, Outline, Plane, and most modern self-hosted tools. In practice, Authentik is more commonly documented in community guides for these specific apps — the forward auth flow (used by Traefik and Caddy integrations) is more straightforward in Authentik's outpost model. Keycloak works equally well but requires more client configuration steps.