Boundary vs Keycloak
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted identity & sso options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Boundary
Identity-based secure access to systems and services
VS
Keycloak
Open-source identity and access management for modern apps
| Feature | Boundary | Keycloak |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Identity & SSO | Identity & SSO |
| License | BUSL-1.1 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Go | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 4,055 | ★ 36,058 |
| First released | 2020 | 2014 |
| Replaces | Teleport, StrongDM | Okta, Auth0, Microsoft Entra ID |
Why pick each one
Choose Boundary if…
- Released under the BUSL-1.1 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (4.1k GitHub stars)
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is Boundary or Keycloak better?
Neither is universally better. Keycloak has the larger community, while Boundary is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Boundary and Keycloak free and open-source?
Yes. Boundary is licensed under BUSL-1.1 and Keycloak under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Boundary and Keycloak with Docker?
Boundary: yes. Keycloak: yes.