Dynamic

OAuth vs Keycloak

The security dance everyone hates but can't live without meets the swiss army knife of iam—if you don't mind sharpening it yourself. Here's our take.

🧊Nice Pick

OAuth

The security dance everyone hates but can't live without. Delegating access without sharing passwords, because trust is a token.

OAuth

Nice Pick

The security dance everyone hates but can't live without. Delegating access without sharing passwords, because trust is a token.

Pros

  • +Eliminates password sharing for third-party apps
  • +Standardized across major platforms like Google and Facebook
  • +Granular scopes for fine-grained access control

Cons

  • -Implementation complexity leads to frequent security flaws
  • -Token management can be a debugging nightmare

Keycloak

The Swiss Army knife of IAM—if you don't mind sharpening it yourself.

Pros

  • +Open-source with robust SSO and OAuth 2.0/OpenID Connect support
  • +Built-in user federation and social login integrations
  • +Fine-grained authorization policies for complex access control

Cons

  • -Steep learning curve for advanced configurations
  • -Can be resource-heavy and tricky to scale in production

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. OAuth is a authentication while Keycloak is a hosting & deployment. We picked OAuth based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

🧊
The Bottom Line
OAuth wins

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

Disagree with our pick? nice@nicepick.dev