EAuth compared

Written to be useful rather than flattering. The section at the end lists where you should pick something else.

At a glance

	EAuth	Auth0	Clerk	Kinde	Logto	Zitadel
Free user limit	none	limited	limited	limited	self-host: none	self-host: none
Self-hostable	yes	no	no	no	yes	yes
MFA on the free plan	yes	limited	limited	yes	yes	yes
Organisations	yes	paid	paid	yes	yes	yes
Password hash export	yes	restricted	restricted	restricted	yes	yes
Prebuilt UI components	not yet	yes	yes	yes	partial	partial
Independent audit	no	yes	yes	yes	partial	yes

Figures for hosted plans change often. Check the provider's own pricing page before deciding.

Where EAuth is the better choice

You do not want a bill that scales with success. The commercial providers are inexpensive until you grow, at which point the cost per user is a meaningful line item.

You want the option to self-host. One Go binary, PostgreSQL, Redis. The same code runs both hosted and on your own machine.

You sell to companies. Organisations with per-employer roles are included rather than gated behind an enterprise tier.

You want to be able to leave. The export contains password hashes.

Where you should pick something else

You need prebuilt UI components today. Clerk's <SignIn /> is genuinely excellent, and we do not have an equivalent yet. If dropping one component into Next.js and being finished matters more than anything else, use Clerk.

You need an independent audit for procurement. We have not had one. If your buyer's security questionnaire requires SOC 2 or ISO 27001, Auth0 and Zitadel can answer it and we cannot.

You need enterprise SSO into your product. SAML and directory sync are not implemented. Auth0 and Zitadel do this well.

Your application cannot tolerate any downtime. We publish measured availability and give no guarantee. That is honest, and for some products it is also disqualifying. Self-host in that case.

You need a large ecosystem of ready-made integrations. Auth0 has a decade of them.