SuperTokens vs Zitadel: which one to choose in 2026?
Both are open source alternatives to Auth0. We compare license, tech stack and features to help you decide which fits your team best.
| SuperTokens | Zitadel | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Auth & Identity | Auth & Identity |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 (con excepciones Apache-2.0/MIT en algunos directorios) |
| GitHub stars | ~15.3k | ~14.9k |
| Tech stack | Java, PostgreSQL | Go, PostgreSQL |
| Replaces | Auth0, Clerk | Auth0, Okta |
SuperTokens has more GitHub stars, which usually indicates a larger community (not necessarily that it's the best option for your use case).
SuperTokens
Authentication with ready-to-integrate SDKs, an alternative to Auth0/Clerk.
Pros
- Very fast integration thanks to the SDKs
Things to consider
- Less flexible than Ory/Keycloak for very custom flows
Zitadel
All-in-one multi-tenant identity, an alternative to Auth0/Okta.
Pros
- Built from the ground up for multi-tenant SaaS
Things to consider
- Documentation is thinner than Keycloak's for advanced cases
- AGPL-3.0: a strong copyleft license, with source-sharing obligations for covered modified versions and certain network use, under its terms
Key features
SuperTokens
- Official SDKs for React, Next.js, Node, Python...
- Secure session management by default
- Social and passwordless login included
Zitadel
- Native multi-tenancy (organizations)
- SSO, MFA and per-org project management
- Full gRPC and REST APIs
Already know which one you prefer?
Add it to your Stack Builder and generate a ready-to-deploy docker-compose.yml alongside the rest of your stack.
Go to Stack Builder