Keycloak vs. PingIdentity, an Open-Source Alternative

Exploring Keycloak as an alternative to PingIdentity for Authentication Solutions

In the evolving landscape of identity and access management (IAM), organizations face critical decisions regarding the tools that will best meet their needs. Keycloak and Ping Identity are two noteworthy solutions, each exhibiting unique features that cater to different organizational requirements. This blog provides a detailed comparison of open-source Keycloak and the commercial offering of Ping Identity across essential aspects of IAM solutions.

Deployment Model

Keycloak: Keycloak is an open-source IAM solution that can be deployed both on-prem and in cloud environments. This flexibility allows organizations to choose their preferred hosting option while maintaining control over their identity management infrastructure. Its ability to adapt quickly to new standards makes it particularly suitable for agile development environments.

PingIdentity: Ping Identity offers a hybrid deployment model that combines both cloud-based and on-premises options. This versatility is particularly beneficial for large enterprises where regulatory compliance dictates specific control over identity services.

Winner

Tie. Both solutions offer strong options for those seeking to deploy the way they want to and need to. Both provide enterprise-centric hybrid options that accommodate complex infrastructure needs.

Customization and Flexibility

Keycloak: Keycloak shines with its extensive customization features, allowing developers to modify everything from login pages to role-based access controls. Being open-source software, organizations have the freedom to make adjustments at any time without vendor lock-in, making it a powerful and cost-effective solution. It can be used as a standalone solution or integrated as an element of a broader IT infrastructure.

PingIdentity: Ping Identity also offers customization capabilities but often demands more technical effort to implement tailored solutions. While it is configurable, achieving significant customizations may be more challenging compared to Keycloak.

Winner

Keycloak wins for its superior flexibility and ease of customization, particularly appealing to developers.

User Experience and Ease of Use

Keycloak: Keycloak is designed with usability in mind, featuring an intuitive interface and straightforward setup process. Its fast, agile nature allows it to adapt quickly to changing application landscapes, ensuring accessibility for users. It supports Single Sign-On (SSO), identity brokering, and various protocols (OAuth2, OpenID Connect, SAML), streamlining user experience.

PingIdentity: Ping Identity prioritizes a comprehensive user experience targeting both technical and non-technical users. Although it features a polished interface, the initial setup can be complex, resulting in a steeper learning curve for administrators.

Winner

Keycloak edges out in user-friendliness during initial setup and usability.

Scalability and Performance

Keycloak: With its cloud-native adaptation and support for high-volume user bases, Keycloak scales effectively to meet organizational needs. However, the management of a scaled Keycloak system can require significant time and resources without proper enterprise support.

PingIdentity: Ping Identity is designed for large-scale environments with robust scalability features, ensuring seamless performance under heavy loads, making it particularly suited for large organizations.

Winner

Ping Identity excels in scalability and performance, proving its capability to manage large-scale authentication requests. However, this comes at a larger cost which could be offset by taking on the management of Keycloak.

Pricing Model

Keycloak: Being open-source software, Keycloak has no licensing fees, making it highly cost-effective. However, organizations should consider potential indirect costs related to deployment and system management.

PingIdentity: Ping Identity operates on a traditional licensing model based on user count and features, which can lead to higher costs, particularly for larger deployments.

Winner

Keycloak is the clear winner for pricing, offering a more budget-friendly option. Coupled with a cost-conscious hosting provider, this can save a corporation literal millions of dollars over the course of an implementation.

Integration Ecosystem

Keycloak: Keycloak provides a strong API and powerful Admin portal, making it compatible with a wide range of frameworks like Spring Boot, Django, React, and more. Its supportive community extensions with integrations and continuous improvements, enhancing its adaptability.

PingIdentity: Ping Identity features a curated integration ecosystem focused on enterprise-level applications, providing documentation and support for integrations, but may lack the range of community-driven options available with Keycloak.

Winner Keycloak takes the lead for its extensive integration options and supportive community. Leverage Phase Two's Free Hosting Tier to test and integrate Authorization and Authentication into an application(s).

Advanced Features

Keycloak: Keycloak supports fine-grained authorization and customizable themes, making it a flexible and cost-effective solution for diverse security needs. Its rapid adaptability to new technologies ensures organizations can stay relevant in a changing landscape.

PingIdentity: Ping Identity excels with advanced features such as fraud detection, identity verification, and robust orchestration capabilities, positioning it as a strong choice for larger enterprises requiring comprehensive security and compliance.

Winner Both Keycloak and Ping Identity offer valuable advanced features, with Keycloak providing flexibility for diverse environments, while Ping Identity delivers robust security measures suitable for complex enterprise needs.

Which one is best for me?

Both Keycloak and Ping Identity provide essential IAM solutions, but their strengths cater to different organizational needs. Keycloak excels in customization, user experience, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility, making it ideal for organizations prioritizing quick adaptation and flexibility. In contrast, Ping Identity stands out with its hybrid deployment capabilities, scalability, and advanced security functionalities, positioning it as a strong choice for larger enterprises. Ultimately, the decision should align with the specific requirements, resources, and strategic goals of your organization.

If you’re looking to migrate to Keycloak, or have questions about Phase Two’s enterprise support, please contact us.