StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Utilities
  3. Authentication
  4. User Management And Authentication
  5. Azure Multi-Factor Authentication vs Keycloak

Azure Multi-Factor Authentication vs Keycloak

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Keycloak
Keycloak
Stacks780
Followers1.3K
Votes102
Azure Multi-Factor Authentication
Azure Multi-Factor Authentication
Stacks4
Followers12
Votes0

Azure Multi-Factor Authentication vs Keycloak: What are the differences?

  1. Key Difference 1: Implementation Approach: Azure Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) is a cloud-based service that can be easily integrated into Microsoft Azure services, providing multi-factor authentication for users. On the other hand, Keycloak is an open-source identity and access management solution that can be self-hosted, allowing more control over the implementation and security measures.

  2. Key Difference 2: Authentication Methods: Azure MFA supports a wide range of authentication methods, including one-time passwords, phone calls, text messages, mobile app notifications, and biometric authentication. In contrast, Keycloak offers various authentication options, but the available methods may depend on the specific configuration and extensions implemented.

  3. Key Difference 3: Integration Capabilities: Azure MFA seamlessly integrates with various Microsoft services and applications, such as Azure Active Directory, Office 365, and Azure Portal. It provides a centralized platform for managing user authentication across these services. Keycloak, on the other hand, offers more flexibility in integrating with different systems and applications, as it supports open standards like SAML, OpenID Connect, and LDAP.

  4. Key Difference 4: Licensing Model: Azure MFA is a paid service offered by Microsoft as part of their Azure cloud platform. It requires a subscription and incurs usage-based costs. In contrast, Keycloak is an open-source solution released under the Apache License, allowing users to use, modify, and distribute it freely without any licensing fees.

  5. Key Difference 5: Customization and Extensibility: Azure MFA provides some customization options, such as branding the user portal with organization logos and themes. However, the extent of customization is limited compared to Keycloak. Keycloak offers extensive customization and extensibility through its theme system, allowing organizations to tailor the user interface and user experience according to their requirements.

  6. Key Difference 6: Ecosystem and Community Support: Azure MFA benefits from the extensive ecosystem of Microsoft tools, services, and documentation, along with robust customer support from Microsoft. Keycloak, being an open-source project, has a vibrant community of developers and users, providing active support, frequent updates, and a wide range of plugins and extensions.

In Summary, Azure Multi-Factor Authentication and Keycloak differ in their implementation approach, authentication methods, integration capabilities, licensing model, customization and extensibility options, and ecosystem/community support.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Advice on Keycloak, Azure Multi-Factor Authentication

sindhujasrivastava
sindhujasrivastava

Jan 16, 2020

Needs advice

I am working on building a platform in my company that will provide a single sign on to all of the internal products to the customer. To do that we need to build an Authorisation server to comply with the OIDC protocol. Earlier we had built the Auth server using the Spring Security OAuth project but since in Spring Security 5.x it is no longer supported we are planning to get over with it as well. Below are the 2 options that I was considering to replace the Spring Auth Server.

  1. Keycloak
  2. Okta
  3. Auth0 Please advise which one to use.
258k views258k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Keycloak
Keycloak
Azure Multi-Factor Authentication
Azure Multi-Factor Authentication

It is an Open Source Identity and Access Management For Modern Applications and Services. It adds authentication to applications and secure services with minimum fuss. No need to deal with storing users or authenticating users. It's all available out of the box.

It helps safeguard access to data and applications while maintaining simplicity for users. It provides additional security by requiring a second form of authentication and delivers strong authentication via a range of easy to use authentication methods. Users may or may not be challenged for MFA based on configuration decisions that an administrator makes.

-
Mobile app as a second factor; Phone call as a second factor; SMS as a second factor; Admin control over verification methods
Statistics
Stacks
780
Stacks
4
Followers
1.3K
Followers
12
Votes
102
Votes
0
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 33
    It's a open source solution
  • 24
    Supports multiple identity provider
  • 17
    OpenID and SAML support
  • 12
    Easy customisation
  • 10
    JSON web token
Cons
  • 7
    Okta
  • 6
    Poor client side documentation
  • 5
    Lack of Code examples for client side
No community feedback yet
Integrations
No integrations available
Azure Active Directory
Azure Active Directory
Microsoft 365
Microsoft 365

What are some alternatives to Keycloak, Azure Multi-Factor Authentication?

Auth0

Auth0

A set of unified APIs and tools that instantly enables Single Sign On and user management to all your applications.

Stormpath

Stormpath

Stormpath is an authentication and user management service that helps development teams quickly and securely build web and mobile applications and services.

Devise

Devise

Devise is a flexible authentication solution for Rails based on Warden

Firebase Authentication

Firebase Authentication

It provides backend services, easy-to-use SDKs, and ready-made UI libraries to authenticate users to your app. It supports authentication using passwords, phone numbers, popular federated identity providers like Google,

Amazon Cognito

Amazon Cognito

You can create unique identities for your users through a number of public login providers (Amazon, Facebook, and Google) and also support unauthenticated guests. You can save app data locally on users’ devices allowing your applications to work even when the devices are offline.

WorkOS

WorkOS

Start selling to enterprise customers with just a few lines of code.

OAuth.io

OAuth.io

OAuth is a protocol that aimed to provide a single secure recipe to manage authorizations. It is now used by almost every web application. However, 30+ different implementations coexist. OAuth.io fixes this massive problem by acting as a universal adapter, thanks to a robust API. With OAuth.io integrating OAuth takes minutes instead of hours or days.

OmniAuth

OmniAuth

OmniAuth is a Ruby authentication framework aimed to abstract away the difficulties of working with various types of authentication providers. It is meant to be hooked up to just about any system, from social networks to enterprise systems to simple username and password authentication.

ORY Hydra

ORY Hydra

It is a self-managed server that secures access to your applications and APIs with OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect. It is OpenID Connect Certified and optimized for latency, high throughput, and low resource consumption.

Kinde

Kinde

Simple, powerful authentication that you can integrate in minutes. Free your users from passwords with secure and frictionless one click sign up and sign in. Built from the ground up using the best in class security protocols available today.

Related Comparisons

Postman
Swagger UI

Postman vs Swagger UI

Mapbox
Google Maps

Google Maps vs Mapbox

Mapbox
Leaflet

Leaflet vs Mapbox vs OpenLayers

Twilio SendGrid
Mailgun

Mailgun vs Mandrill vs SendGrid

Runscope
Postman

Paw vs Postman vs Runscope