Keycloak vs Mobile Connect

Overview

Keycloak

Stacks780

Followers1.3K

Votes102

Mobile Connect

Stacks0

Followers2

Votes0

Keycloak vs Mobile Connect: What are the differences?

Introduction

Mobile Connect and Keycloak are both identity and access management platforms that provide authentication and authorization services to applications. However, there are several key differences between the two platforms. The following paragraphs outline six specific differences between Mobile Connect and Keycloak.

Protocol Compatibility: Mobile Connect is specifically designed to work with telecom operators using the OpenID Connect protocol. On the other hand, Keycloak supports multiple protocols, including OpenID Connect, OAuth 2.0, SAML, and more. This difference in protocol compatibility allows Keycloak to integrate with a wider range of identity providers and applications.
Customization and Branding: Keycloak offers extensive customization and branding options, allowing organizations to tailor the look and feel of the login and registration pages to match their brand. Mobile Connect, on the other hand, has limited customization options, making it less suitable for organizations that require a highly customized user experience.
User Management: Keycloak provides advanced user management capabilities, including features like user registration, self-service password reset, user federation, and more. Mobile Connect, on the other hand, has limited user management capabilities and mainly relies on telecom operator systems for user information and authentication.
Multi-Factor Authentication: Keycloak supports a wide range of multi-factor authentication methods, including SMS OTP, email verification, and hardware tokens, among others. Mobile Connect, on the other hand, primarily relies on mobile network operator authentication, which typically involves a mobile device and SIM card for authentication.
Integration Options: Keycloak provides extensive integration options, making it easier to integrate with existing applications and identity systems. Additionally, Keycloak supports a wide range of programming languages and frameworks, allowing developers to choose the most suitable technology stack for their application. Mobile Connect, on the other hand, is more limited in terms of integration options and may require additional development effort to integrate with non-telecom applications.
License and Cost: Keycloak is an open-source platform, available under the Apache License, which means it is free to use and customize. Mobile Connect, on the other hand, usually involves commercial agreements and may require licensing fees depending on the specific implementation and integration requirements.

In Summary, Mobile Connect is specifically designed for telecom operators, has limited customization options, and relies on telecom operator systems for user information and authentication. Keycloak, on the other hand, supports multiple protocols, offers extensive customization options, provides advanced user management capabilities, supports a wide range of multi-factor authentication methods, has extensive integration options, and is available under the open-source Apache License.

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)

Manual

Advice on Keycloak, Mobile Connect

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.

Keycloak
Okta
Auth0 Please advise which one to use.

258k views258k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Keycloak	Mobile Connect
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 is a new authentication service based on the Open ID Connect Standard and SIM cards. Its API offers a secure and convenient method to login to your service.
-	Simple, secure authentication; Free to try, easy to use; Access a growing user base
Statistics
Stacks 780	Stacks 0
Followers 1.3K	Followers 2
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

What are some alternatives to Keycloak, Mobile Connect?

Auth0

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

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 is a flexible authentication solution for Rails based on Warden

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

Keycloak vs Mobile Connect: What are the differences?

Introduction

Protocol Compatibility: Mobile Connect is specifically designed to work with telecom operators using the OpenID Connect protocol. On the other hand, Keycloak supports multiple protocols, including OpenID Connect, OAuth 2.0, SAML, and more. This difference in protocol compatibility allows Keycloak to integrate with a wider range of identity providers and applications.
Customization and Branding: Keycloak offers extensive customization and branding options, allowing organizations to tailor the look and feel of the login and registration pages to match their brand. Mobile Connect, on the other hand, has limited customization options, making it less suitable for organizations that require a highly customized user experience.
User Management: Keycloak provides advanced user management capabilities, including features like user registration, self-service password reset, user federation, and more. Mobile Connect, on the other hand, has limited user management capabilities and mainly relies on telecom operator systems for user information and authentication.
Multi-Factor Authentication: Keycloak supports a wide range of multi-factor authentication methods, including SMS OTP, email verification, and hardware tokens, among others. Mobile Connect, on the other hand, primarily relies on mobile network operator authentication, which typically involves a mobile device and SIM card for authentication.
Integration Options: Keycloak provides extensive integration options, making it easier to integrate with existing applications and identity systems. Additionally, Keycloak supports a wide range of programming languages and frameworks, allowing developers to choose the most suitable technology stack for their application. Mobile Connect, on the other hand, is more limited in terms of integration options and may require additional development effort to integrate with non-telecom applications.
License and Cost: Keycloak is an open-source platform, available under the Apache License, which means it is free to use and customize. Mobile Connect, on the other hand, usually involves commercial agreements and may require licensing fees depending on the specific implementation and integration requirements.

Keycloak vs Mobile Connect

Overview