Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Keycloak vs WSO2 Identity Server: What are the differences?
Introduction
Keycloak and WSO2 Identity Server are both popular open-source identity and access management (IAM) solutions. While they serve a similar purpose of managing user identities and enforcing security policies, they have some key differences. In this article, we will explore these differences in detail.
Token Support: Keycloak supports a wide range of authentication tokens, including OAuth, OpenID Connect (OIDC), and SAML. It also provides support for custom token types. On the other hand, WSO2 Identity Server primarily focuses on OAuth and OIDC, with limited support for SAML.
Integration Capabilities: Keycloak offers out-of-the-box integration with various third-party services and platforms, such as Docker, Kubernetes, and Apache Kafka. It also provides a comprehensive REST API for seamless integration with other applications. WSO2 Identity Server, on the other hand, provides integration with enterprise systems like Active Directory, LDAP, and databases, making it a preferred choice for organizations with existing infrastructure.
Scalability and High Availability: Both Keycloak and WSO2 Identity Server support clustering and horizontal scaling for high availability. However, Keycloak's architecture is designed to handle larger-scale deployments with its lightweight and distributed nature, making it more suitable for highly scalable environments.
User-Friendly Interface: Keycloak emphasizes a modern, user-friendly interface with a streamlined user experience. It provides a visually appealing and intuitive management console, making it easier for administrators and developers to configure and manage IAM services. WSO2 Identity Server, while functional, may have a steeper learning curve and a more complex interface.
Extensibility: Keycloak provides a robust extension model, allowing developers to add custom functionality and integrate with existing systems. It offers a wide range of plugins and extensions, facilitating easy customization and extension of core functionality. WSO2 Identity Server also supports extension points and provides a plugin architecture, but it may require more development effort compared to Keycloak.
Community and Support: Keycloak has a vibrant community and active user base, which results in frequent updates and releases. It also has extensive documentation and various community-driven resources available, making it easier to find help and troubleshoot issues. WSO2 Identity Server also has a supportive community, but it may have a smaller user base compared to Keycloak.
In summary, Keycloak offers extensive token support, out-of-the-box integrations, scalability, user-friendliness, extensibility, and a vibrant community, making it a well-rounded IAM solution for modern environments. WSO2 Identity Server, on the other hand, focuses on enterprise integrations, clustering, and provides a more robust interface for organizations with existing infrastructure and specific requirements.
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.
It isn't clear if beside the AuthZ requirement you had others, but given the scenario you described my suggestion would for you to go with Keycloak. First of all because you have already an onpremise IdP and with Keycloak you could maintain that setup (if privacy is a concern). Another important point is configuration and customization: I would assume with Spring OAuth you might have had some custom logic around authentication, this can be easily reconfigured in Keycloak by leveraging SPI (https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/server_development/index.html#_auth_spi). Finally AuthZ as a functionality is well developed, based on standard protocols and extensible on Keycloak (https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/authorization_services/)
We have good experience using Keycloak for SSO with OIDC with our Spring Boot based applications. It's free, easy to install and configure, extensible - so I recommend it.
You can also use Keycloak as an Identity Broker, which enables you to handle authentication on many different identity providers of your customers. With this setup, you are able to perform authorization tasks centralized.
Pros of Keycloak
- It's a open source solution33
- Supports multiple identity provider24
- OpenID and SAML support17
- Easy customisation12
- JSON web token10
- Maintained by devs at Redhat6
Pros of WSO2 Identity Server
- It's a open source solution1
- Supports multiple identity provider1
- OpenID and SAML support1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Keycloak
- Okta7
- Poor client side documentation6
- Lack of Code examples for client side5
