logto

Pros of SuperTokens

• More flexible and customizable authentication flows
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Self-hosted option for complete data control

Cons of SuperTokens

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less out-of-the-box features compared to Logto

Code Comparison

SuperTokens:

import SuperTokens from "supertokens-node";
import Session from "supertokens-node/recipe/session";

SuperTokens.init({
    appInfo: {
        apiDomain: "...",
        appName: "...",
        websiteDomain: "..."
    },
    recipeList: [Session.init()]
});

Logto:

import { LogtoClient } from '@logto/node';

const logto = new LogtoClient({
  endpoint: 'https://logto.dev',
  appId: 'app_id',
  appSecret: 'app_secret',
});

Both SuperTokens and Logto offer robust authentication solutions, but they cater to different needs. SuperTokens provides more flexibility and customization options, making it suitable for complex authentication requirements. However, this comes at the cost of a steeper learning curve. Logto, on the other hand, offers a more streamlined setup process and out-of-the-box features, making it easier for beginners to implement authentication quickly. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of the project and the development team's expertise.

Pros of Kratos

• More mature project with a larger community and ecosystem
• Highly flexible and customizable for complex identity management scenarios
• Supports multiple authentication methods out of the box (e.g., password, WebAuthn, TOTP)

Cons of Kratos

• Steeper learning curve due to its modular architecture
• Requires more configuration and setup compared to Logto's simpler approach
• Less focus on user interface components, requiring more frontend development

Code Comparison

Kratos configuration (YAML):

selfservice:
  strategies:
    password:
      enabled: true
    oidc:
      enabled: true
      config:
        providers:
          - id: google
            provider: google
            client_id: ...
            client_secret: ...

Logto configuration (TypeScript):

import { LogtoConfig } from '@logto/node';

const config: LogtoConfig = {
  endpoint: 'https://example.logto.app/',
  appId: 'your-application-id',
  appSecret: 'your-application-secret',
};

Both projects aim to provide identity and access management solutions, but they differ in their approach and target audience. Kratos offers more flexibility and advanced features for complex scenarios, while Logto focuses on simplicity and ease of use for developers who want a quick setup with minimal configuration.

Pros of Keycloak

• More mature and battle-tested, with a larger community and extensive documentation
• Offers a wider range of features and integrations out-of-the-box
• Supports multiple deployment options, including standalone and clustered setups

Cons of Keycloak

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Heavier resource consumption, which may impact performance on smaller systems
• Less modern user interface compared to Logto

Code Comparison

Keycloak (Java):

@Override
protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest req, HttpServletResponse resp) throws ServletException, IOException {
    AuthenticationManager.AuthResult authResult = AuthenticationManager.authenticateBearerToken(session);
    if (authResult == null) {
        resp.sendError(HttpServletResponse.SC_UNAUTHORIZED);
        return;
    }
    // ... rest of the code
}

Logto (TypeScript):

app.use(async (ctx, next) => {
  const { authorization } = ctx.header;
  if (!authorization) {
    ctx.status = 401;
    return;
  }
  const user = await verifyJwtToken(authorization);
  ctx.state.user = user;
  await next();
});

Both repositories provide authentication and authorization solutions, but Keycloak offers a more comprehensive feature set at the cost of complexity, while Logto focuses on simplicity and modern user experience.

Pros of Next-Auth

• Seamless integration with Next.js applications
• Extensive support for various authentication providers
• Active community and regular updates

Cons of Next-Auth

• Limited to Next.js framework
• Requires more setup for advanced authentication scenarios

Code Comparison

Next-Auth:

import NextAuth from "next-auth"
import Providers from "next-auth/providers"

export default NextAuth({
  providers: [
    Providers.GitHub({
      clientId: process.env.GITHUB_ID,
      clientSecret: process.env.GITHUB_SECRET
    }),
  ],
})

Logto:

import { LogtoClient } from '@logto/browser';

const logto = new LogtoClient({
  endpoint: 'https://your-logto-endpoint',
  appId: 'your-application-id',
});

await logto.signIn('http://localhost:3000/callback');

Key Differences

• Next-Auth is specifically designed for Next.js applications, while Logto is a more general-purpose authentication solution.
• Logto offers a more comprehensive identity management system, including user management and access control.
• Next-Auth provides easier integration with various OAuth providers, while Logto focuses on providing a complete authentication and authorization platform.

Both solutions offer robust authentication capabilities, but they cater to different use cases and project requirements. The choice between them depends on the specific needs of your application and development ecosystem.