Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

authentik vs Falco

authentik logo

authentik

Cybersecurity

Open-source identity provider with flexible authentication flows

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: authentik smaller project than Keycloak, with a correspondingly smaller community and fewer integration guides; 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: authentik covers Configurable flows, Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which authentik and Falco actually diverge.

Attributes where authentik and Falco differ
AttributeauthentikFalco
Pricing modelOpen-source core with a paid enterprise tierOpen source, no licence fee
PlatformsDocker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hostedLinux, Kubernetes, Self-hosted

Identical on both: starting price (Free), 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 authentik

  • Configurable flows
  • Protocol support
  • Application proxy
  • Modern admin interface

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.

authentik

  • Self-hosted SSO across internal services without commercial identity pricingnot Falco
  • Putting authentication in front of applications that have none, via the proxynot Falco
  • Teams who tried Keycloak and wanted something less heavynot 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 authentik
  • A regulated business required to evidence host and container intrusion detection on Kubernetes nodes for an auditnot authentik
  • A security team wanting a vendor-neutral detection layer whose rules they can read and modify rather than a black-box agentnot authentik
  • A cluster where a compromised dependency might write to sensitive paths or open unexpected outbound connections, and only kernel-level visibility will catch itnot authentik

Where each one falls short

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

authentik

  • Smaller project than Keycloak, with a correspondingly smaller community and fewer integration guides
  • The flow model is flexible but conceptually unfamiliar, and simple setups can feel over-abstracted
  • Enterprise support and some governance features sit behind the paid tier
  • Self-hosted identity is still yours to secure, patch and keep available

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

authentik

Free
  • Open sourceFree
    • Full identity provider
    • All protocols
    • 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 authentik if

  • You need configurable flows.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hosted.
  • You also want protocol support.
authentik 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 authentik or Falco better?
Neither clearly leads. authentik 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, authentik or Falco?
authentik starts at Free and Falco at Free.
Does authentik or Falco run on more platforms?
authentik runs on Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Self-hosted. Falco runs on Linux, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
Can I use authentik for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is authentik best used for?
authentik is most often used for self-hosted sso across internal services without commercial identity pricing, putting authentication in front of applications that have none, via the proxy, teams who tried keycloak and wanted something less heavy. Of those, self-hosted sso across internal services without commercial identity pricing and putting authentication in front of applications that have none, via the proxy are not what Falco is typically brought in for.
What can authentik do that Falco cannot?
authentik covers Configurable flows, Protocol support, Application proxy, Modern admin interface. Falco covers eBPF kernel instrumentation, System call rules engine, Container and Kubernetes context, Default rule set.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

authentik: Is authentik free?

The open-source edition is free and complete for most use. An enterprise tier adds support and additional features.

Falco: Does Falco block attacks?

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

authentik: authentik or Keycloak?

authentik is generally reported as easier to run and administer; Keycloak is more established with a larger community and Red Hat behind it.

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.

authentik: Can authentik protect apps with no login of their own?

Yes. Its application proxy places authentication in front of services that have no built-in authentication.

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 authentik

More on Falco

Keep looking

Other head to heads