Keycloak vs Supabase Auth
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?
Keycloak
Open-source identity and access management for modern apps
VS
Supabase Auth
Small JWT-based user authentication API service
| Feature | Keycloak | Supabase Auth |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Identity & SSO | Identity & SSO |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Java | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, bare-metal | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 36,058 | ★ 2,513 |
| First released | 2014 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Okta, Auth0, Microsoft Entra ID | Auth0 |
Why pick each one
Choose Supabase Auth if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (2.5k GitHub stars)
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is Keycloak or Supabase Auth better?
Neither is universally better. Keycloak has the larger community, while Supabase Auth is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Keycloak and Supabase Auth free and open-source?
Yes. Keycloak is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Supabase Auth under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Keycloak and Supabase Auth with Docker?
Keycloak: yes. Supabase Auth: yes.