Apache Shiro vs Keycloak

Developers should use Apache Shiro when building Java applications that require robust security features without the complexity of Java EE security or Spring Security meets developers should use keycloak when building applications that require robust security, centralized user management, and compliance with industry standards, such as in enterprise environments, microservices architectures, or cloud-native applications. Here's our take.

Apache Shiro

Nice Pick

Developers should use Apache Shiro when building Java applications that require robust security features without the complexity of Java EE security or Spring Security

Pros

• It's particularly useful for projects needing lightweight, flexible security solutions, such as web applications with custom authentication flows, REST APIs with token-based security, or legacy systems requiring security upgrades
• Related to: java, spring-security

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Keycloak

Developers should use Keycloak when building applications that require robust security, centralized user management, and compliance with industry standards, such as in enterprise environments, microservices architectures, or cloud-native applications

Pros

• It is particularly valuable for scenarios needing SSO across multiple services, integrating with external identity providers (e
• Related to: oauth-2.0, openid-connect

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. Apache Shiro is a framework while Keycloak is a platform. We picked Apache Shiro based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

Apache Shiro wins

Based on overall popularity. Apache Shiro is more widely used, but Keycloak excels in its own space.