1. Integration Approach: Spring Security is a framework for securing Java-based applications. It integrates with existing Spring frameworks seamlessly, providing a comprehensive security solution. On the other hand, oso is a policy engine that is language-independent and can be integrated into multiple programming languages easily, allowing for consistent policy enforcement across different parts of an application.

2. Policy Management: Spring Security focuses more on implementing user authentication and access control mechanisms, whereas oso specializes in managing complex authorization policies. With oso, developers can define policies declaratively and manage them centrally, which simplifies the implementation and maintenance of access control rules.

3. Dynamic Authorization: oso excels in handling dynamic authorization requirements where access control rules may change frequently based on runtime data or user attributes. This flexibility allows developers to adapt their authorization logic without modifying code, providing more agility in managing access policies compared to Spring Security.

4. Ease of Use: Spring Security is tightly integrated with the Spring ecosystem, making it straightforward for developers familiar with Spring to implement security features. Conversely, oso's query language and policy modeling may have a steeper learning curve initially but offer a more expressive and comprehensive approach to defining and managing authorization logic.

5. Community Support: Spring Security benefits from strong community support due to its widespread adoption in Java enterprise applications. Developers can find extensive resources, tutorials, and community forums dedicated to Spring Security, aiding in resolving issues and staying updated on best practices. In contrast, oso, being a newer entrant in the authorization space, is rapidly growing its community but may have fewer resources available for support and troubleshooting.

6. Scalability: When it comes to scalability, oso's policy engine is designed to handle complex authorization requirements in large-scale applications efficiently. Its ability to scale and perform well under high loads makes it a suitable choice for applications requiring robust and dynamic access control mechanisms. On the other hand, Spring Security's scalability heavily relies on the underlying Spring framework's scalability features and architectural design choices.

In Summary, Spring Security and oso differ in their integration approach, focus on policy management, handling of dynamic authorization, ease of use, community support, and scalability capabilities.