You don't need Okta.
You need managed Keycloak.

When evaluating IAM solutions, both upfront cost and total cost of ownership (TCO) matter. Okta operates on a subscription-based pricing model, with costs varying based on the number of users and the features you select. As a SaaS solution, it bundles infrastructure, maintenance, and support into its subscription fees — which reduces internal IT burden, since Okta handles upgrades, patches, and system maintenance.

As of 2026, Okta's published Workforce Identity (Okta Platform) plans are billed per user, per month:

Figures reflect Okta's published Workforce Identity list pricing as of 2026 (link to okta.com/pricing); typically billed annually with minimums. Many enterprise features (Device Access, API Access Management, Access Gateway, ITP) are add-ons even on Essentials, and customer-identity (CIAM) is priced separately on the Auth0 platform.

The catch is what those headline per-user numbers leave out. Many of the capabilities teams actually need — Device Access, API Access Management, Secure Partner Access, Access Gateway, Identity Threat Protection, and Identity Security Posture Management — are add-ons even on the Essentials plan, and the most advanced tiers are quote-only. Workflows are capped, and privileged access is limited by plan. With every feature and every user added, the per-user cost grows significantly, and a bill can balloon far beyond the original projections to become a large slice of overall IT spend.

Keycloak, by contrast, is an open-source solution developed by Red Hat and is free to use regardless of the number of users or the scale of the project. There are no licensing fees. It does, however, require infrastructure to host and run the application — cloud services or on-premise hardware — plus resources to maintain, update, and customize it. The primary cost comes from self-hosting and managing the software, which means your spend tends to be fixed: it's driven by infrastructure rather than by features or user counts.

Winner: Keycloak

Leveraging Phase Two's managed hosting provides a more capable, cost-conscious way to run, test, and integrate authentication and authorization into your applications. As an application's needs grow for users and integrations, Keycloak quickly becomes a far more cost-effective choice. See a side-by-side pricing estimate.

A strong advantage of Okta is that it's a managed service. From a DevOps perspective, it requires minimal maintenance — the Okta team handles updates, security patches, and infrastructure, keeping the system up to date. This comes at a cost, though, since customization of Okta is limited.

Self-hosted Keycloak requires more attention: organizations must allocate resources for installing, configuring, and updating the software, as well as managing the underlying infrastructure. This can be a drawback for teams without the necessary technical expertise. Phase Two removes this trade-off entirely: with managed hosting and zero-downtime upgrades, you get Keycloak's control without the operational load.

Winner: Okta for self-hosted Keycloak — a tie when Keycloak is managed by Phase Two

Okta's authentication mechanisms support multiple methods for enhanced security and user convenience. Its authorization capabilities include role-based access control (RBAC) and policy management, and it supports identity federation through SAML, OpenID Connect, and other standards. Single sign-on (SSO) ensures a seamless experience across sign-on options, and Okta's user-management features include self-service registration, account recovery, and a comprehensive directory. Okta also offers extensive APIs, pre-built integrations, detailed analytics and logging, and automated lifecycle management for provisioning and deprovisioning.

Keycloak offers a comprehensive suite of features that is at parity with — or better than — Okta in many ways. It provides multiple authentication methods, including username/password, social logins, and multi-factor authentication (MFA). It supports fine-grained authorization through RBAC and attribute-based access control (ABAC), excels at identity federation via SAML and OpenID Connect, and delivers SSO across multiple applications. Its user management covers registration, password policies, and account linking, and the platform is highly customizable through themes, custom code, and extensive configuration options — backed by strong community support and a wide range of extensions.

A key point: the features that Okta and Auth0 cover somewhat separately are all covered by a single Keycloak deployment.

Winner: Keycloak

The two offer much of the same authentication and authorization functionality, but Keycloak is extremely flexible to extend and configure — a system that can adjust and grow with an application — and it centralizes more use cases without distinctions between separate products.

Choosing between Okta and Keycloak largely depends on your organization's specific needs and capabilities. Okta is an excellent choice for those who need a fully managed solution and are comfortable with per-user, per-feature costs. For organizations that prioritize cost savings and predictability, have the capability to manage their infrastructure, or require extensive customization, Keycloak emerges as a powerful, budget-friendly alternative — backed by extensive documentation and community support.

Ultimately, we at Phase Two believe marrying the two together is the strongest match. We offer robust Keycloak hosting, migration, and support options that fit businesses of multiple sizes. Coupling the capabilities of Keycloak with the advantages of a managed service translates directly to implementation and cost control across SSO, authentication, authorization, user management, and more. Leveraging Keycloak means that ongoing costs are relatively fixed, so concerns about user growth or feature needs don't have to factor into every decision.