Bitwarden vs Keycloak
Bitwarden, Keycloak compared on license, free-edition limits, deployment and project health. Change a project below to compare something else.
| Bitwarden | Keycloak | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Security | Security |
| License | GNU Affero General Public License v3.0Open source (OSI) | Apache License 2.0Open source (OSI) |
| Free edition | Some features paywalled | Not confirmed |
| Deployment | Self-hosted · Cloud | Self-hosted |
| Self-hosting setup | Needs a database | Needs a database |
| SSO / SAML | Paid | Free |
| Role-based access control | Not confirmed | Free |
| Audit logs | Paid | Free |
| Multi-user / teams | Not confirmed | Free |
| Backups and restore | Not confirmed | Not confirmed |
| API access | Not confirmed | Free |
| Support SLA | Paid | Not confirmed |
| GitHub stars | 20k | 37k |
| Last release | Sep 30, 2026 | Oct 1, 2026 |
| Alternative to | 1Password, LastPass | Auth0, Okta |
In short
- Bitwarden is licensed GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (open source (osi)). Free edition: some features paywalled.
- Keycloak is licensed Apache License 2.0 (open source (osi)). Free edition: not confirmed.
Each project page lists the official sources behind these answers. Where the official pages do not say, the table shows “Not confirmed”.