Keycloak vs OpenFGA: Pricing and Ratings Compared (2026)
Entry prices and free plans as read on each vendor's pricing page, and user ratings as published on review sites, for Keycloak and OpenFGA side by side. This page compares data; it is not a hands-on review.
On the data: On the data below the two are close or not directly comparable, so we do not name a winner for this pair.
Short on time? Here's the quick answer
Based on published vendor pricing and features and on public review data, here's who should pick what:
Keycloak
Open-source identity and access management
Best for you if:
- • You want open source identity
OpenFGA
Fine-grained authorization inspired by Google's Zanzibar, built for scalability and flexibility.
Best for you if:
- • You want highly scalable and performant for authorization checks
| At a Glance | OpenFGA | |
|---|---|---|
Starts at | Free 100% free | Free 100% free |
Category | Identity & Access Security | Security Identity & Access |
Rating | n/a | n/a |
Free plan | Yes | Yes |
Choose Keycloak or OpenFGA?
Choose Keycloak if
- You want open source identity
- You want self-hostable
- You work in identity & access, not security
Choose OpenFGA if
- You want highly scalable and performant for authorization checks
- You want flexible modeling language supports various access control paradigms
- You work in security, not identity & access
In-Depth Analysis
Keycloak
Open-source identity and access management
Keycloak's pricing is exceptionally generous, being entirely free as an open-source solution.
Strengths
- Pro: Open source identity
- Pro: Self-hostable
- Pro: Feature rich
- Pro: No per-user cost
- Pro: Enterprise ready
Weaknesses
- Con: Complex to set up
- Con: Requires maintenance
- Con: Learning curve
- Con: Java-based
- Con: UI dated
Key features
OpenFGA
Fine-grained authorization inspired by Google's Zanzibar, built for scalability and flexibility.
OpenFGA's pricing is exceptionally generous, as it is entirely free.
Strengths
- Pro: Highly scalable and performant for authorization checks.
- Pro: Flexible modeling language supports various access control paradigms.
- Pro: Open-source and backed by the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF).
- Pro: Easy integration with existing applications via SDKs.
Weaknesses
- Con: Requires Docker for quick local setup, which might be an initial barrier for some.
- Con: New users may need to learn the specific modeling language and concepts.
Key features
Plans and prices: Keycloak vs OpenFGA
| Tool | Plans and prices | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Keycloak |
| keycloak.org read Sep 28, 2026 |
| OpenFGA |
| openfga.dev read Oct 8, 2026 |
Prices as read on each vendor's own pricing page on the date shown. Plans are listed per tool and are not matched against the other tool's plans: a plan name or price in one column says nothing about the same row in the other. Details on Keycloak pricing and OpenFGA pricing.
Key Takeaways
Keycloak
- Choose if you want open-source identity and access management
OpenFGA
- Choose if you want fine-grained authorization inspired by Google's Zanzibar, built for scalability and flexibility
What the data shows
On the data below the two are close or not directly comparable, so we do not name a winner for this pair.
- Both have a free plan.
Criteria: user rating (only above 20 reviews on both sides, gap of 0.2 or more), entry price (only on the same billing basis), free plan. How we rate
Frequently Asked Questions
How do Keycloak and OpenFGA compare in 2026?
On the data below the two are close or not directly comparable, so we do not name a winner for this pair. Both have a free plan.
What are Keycloak and OpenFGA used for?
Keycloak: Open-source identity and access management. OpenFGA: Fine-grained authorization inspired by Google's Zanzibar, built for scalability and flexibility.
What does Keycloak cost vs OpenFGA?
Keycloak is free. OpenFGA is free. Prices read on the vendors' pricing pages, latest check Oct 8, 2026.
What's the main difference between Keycloak and OpenFGA?
Keycloak's main strength: open source identity. OpenFGA's main strength: highly scalable and performant for authorization checks.