Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Authelia vs Falco

Authelia logo

Authelia

Cybersecurity

Open-source authentication and two-factor portal for reverse proxies

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Falco logo

Falco

Cybersecurity

CNCF-graduated runtime threat detection for Linux and Kubernetes using eBPF

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Authelia depends on a reverse proxy: it is not a standalone identity provider; Falco falco detects and alerts but does not block; stopping an attack requires wiring up Falco Talon or your own response tooling, so out of the box a confirmed detection still means a human intervening after the fact.
  • They diverge on capability: Authelia covers Reverse proxy integration, Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Authelia and Falco actually diverge.

Attributes where Authelia and Falco differ
AttributeAutheliaFalco
PlatformsDocker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hostedLinux, Kubernetes, Self-hosted

Identical on both: starting price (Free), pricing model (Open source, no licence fee), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Cybersecurity).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Authelia

  • Reverse proxy integration
  • Two-factor authentication
  • Access control rules
  • Lightweight backends

Only in Falco

  • eBPF kernel instrumentation
  • System call rules engine
  • Container and Kubernetes context
  • Default rule set
  • Falcosidekick
  • Falco Talon
  • Plugins framework
  • DaemonSet deployment

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Authelia

  • Putting a login and 2FA in front of self-hosted services that have nonenot Falco
  • Adding SSO across a small set of internal tools without a full identity platformnot Falco
  • Home and small-team infrastructure behind a single reverse proxynot Falco

Falco

  • A platform team that needs to know when a shell is opened inside a production container, which image scanning cannot detect because it happens at runtimenot Authelia
  • A regulated business required to evidence host and container intrusion detection on Kubernetes nodes for an auditnot Authelia
  • A security team wanting a vendor-neutral detection layer whose rules they can read and modify rather than a black-box agentnot Authelia
  • A cluster where a compromised dependency might write to sensitive paths or open unexpected outbound connections, and only kernel-level visibility will catch itnot Authelia

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Authelia

  • Depends on a reverse proxy: it is not a standalone identity provider
  • Configuration is YAML-first with no administrative interface, so changes mean editing files
  • Not a full IAM: user management, provisioning and federation are limited compared with Keycloak
  • Scales poorly as an organisation-wide identity solution, which is not its target

Falco

  • Falco detects and alerts but does not block; stopping an attack requires wiring up Falco Talon or your own response tooling, so out of the box a confirmed detection still means a human intervening after the fact.
  • The default rule set is noisy in real clusters and generates a large volume of benign matches from normal operational activity; without weeks of tuning, alert fatigue sets in and the team stops reading the feed, which is the usual failure mode.
  • There is no storage, console, search or case management in the project, so a working detection capability means also running Falcosidekick, an event store, a dashboard and alert routing, all of which you build, host and maintain.
  • The modern eBPF driver requires kernel 5.8 or later; older hosts fall back to the legacy probe or the kernel module, which brings driver-building against kernel headers and the operational fragility that comes with it on every kernel upgrade.
  • Per-node syscall instrumentation carries measurable CPU overhead on busy hosts, and the cost scales with syscall volume rather than with cluster size, so the noisiest and most performance-sensitive workloads are exactly the ones that feel it most.

Pricing, plan by plan

Authelia

Free
  • AutheliaFree
    • Full functionality
    • No usage limits
    • Community support

Falco

Free
  • Falco (open source)Free
    • Apache 2.0 licence, CNCF graduated project
    • eBPF and kernel module drivers
    • Full rules engine and default rule set

Which should you pick?

Choose Authelia if

  • You need reverse proxy integration.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hosted.
  • You also want two-factor authentication.
Authelia review

Choose Falco if

  • You need ebpf kernel instrumentation.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
  • You also want system call rules engine.
Falco review

Questions people ask

Is Authelia or Falco better?
Neither clearly leads. Authelia starts at Free and Falco at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Authelia or Falco?
Authelia starts at Free and Falco at Free.
Does Authelia or Falco run on more platforms?
Authelia runs on Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hosted. Falco runs on Linux, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
Can I use Authelia for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Authelia best used for?
Authelia is most often used for putting a login and 2fa in front of self-hosted services that have none, adding sso across a small set of internal tools without a full identity platform, home and small-team infrastructure behind a single reverse proxy. Of those, putting a login and 2fa in front of self-hosted services that have none and adding sso across a small set of internal tools without a full identity platform are not what Falco is typically brought in for.
What can Authelia do that Falco cannot?
Authelia covers Reverse proxy integration, Two-factor authentication, Access control rules, Lightweight backends. Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation, System call rules engine, Container and Kubernetes context, Default rule set.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Authelia: Is Authelia free?

Yes, open source with no licence fee.

Falco: Does Falco block attacks?

No. It detects and emits events. Response requires Falco Talon or your own automation on top.

Authelia: Does Authelia need a reverse proxy?

Yes. It integrates through forward authentication with Nginx, Traefik, Caddy or HAProxy rather than sitting in front of traffic itself.

Falco: Is Falco owned by Sysdig?

Sysdig created and open sourced it, but it graduated within the CNCF in February 2024, so governance sits with the foundation rather than the vendor.

Authelia: Authelia or Keycloak?

Authelia is far lighter and aimed at protecting self-hosted services behind a proxy. Keycloak is a full identity and access management platform, and much more to run.

Falco: What does it cost?

The project is Apache 2.0 with no licence fee. The cost is the storage, routing, tuning and staff time needed to make its output useful.

Falco: What kernel version do I need?

Kernel 5.8 or later for the default modern eBPF driver. Older hosts need the legacy eBPF probe or the kernel module.

Share

Related pages

More on Authelia

More on Falco

Keep looking

Other head to heads