Developer Tools · head to head
Keycloak vs Soketi
Keycloak
Developer Tools
Open-source identity and access management server.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
Soketi
Developer Tools
Self-hosted, Pusher-compatible WebSockets server with a stalled maintenance record
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real cost: Keycloak requires self-hosted deployment and operational expertise to install, configure and maintain; Soketi maintenance has effectively stalled: the maintainer has said time is severely limited, releases are infrequent, and the community has been discussing whether the project is abandoned, which means security fixes may not arrive.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Keycloak and Soketi actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Developer Tools).
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 Keycloak
Nothing recorded that Soketi does not also cover.
Only in Soketi
- Pusher protocol compatibility
- Presence and private channels
- Horizontal scaling
- App management backends
- Webhooks
- Prometheus metrics
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
Keycloak
- Organisations requiring self-hosted identity infrastructure for compliance or data residencynot Soketi
- Companies with existing LDAP/Active Directory systems needing federated authenticationnot Soketi
- Open-source projects and communities requiring free IAM without licensing costsnot Soketi
- Enterprises building custom identity workflows requiring fine-grained authorisationnot Soketi
- Teams with sufficient operational expertise to manage infrastructurenot Soketi
Soketi
- A Laravel application that already uses Echo and wants to stop paying a hosted realtime providernot Keycloak
- Realtime notifications or presence indicators where data must not leave your own infrastructure for compliance reasonsnot Keycloak
- A local or CI environment that needs a Pusher-compatible server without hitting a paid accountnot Keycloak
- A high-connection-count application where hosted per-connection pricing has become the largest line in the infrastructure billnot Keycloak
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
Keycloak
- Requires self-hosted deployment and operational expertise to install, configure and maintain
- No managed cloud option provided by Red Hat; organisations must operate infrastructure themselves or use third-party distributions
- Clustering and high-availability configurations require additional operational knowledge
- Community support only; commercial support requires third-party vendors or distributions
Soketi
- Maintenance has effectively stalled: the maintainer has said time is severely limited, releases are infrequent, and the community has been discussing whether the project is abandoned, which means security fixes may not arrive.
- Dependency drift on Node and uWebSockets.js will eventually force you to fork or migrate, and that cost is unbudgeted at the point you adopt it.
- There is no commercial support to buy, so a production incident at three in the morning is entirely your problem with no escalation path.
- Scaling beyond a single node needs Redis and careful configuration, and getting presence channels correct across nodes is a genuine source of subtle bugs.
- It implements the Pusher protocol rather than tracking it, so any protocol feature Pusher adds later will not appear, and the compatibility guarantee slowly decays.
Pricing, plan by plan
Keycloak
Free- Open-sourceFree
- Full platform functionality
- Self-hosted deployment
- Community support
Soketi
Free- SoketiFree
- MIT licensed
- Unlimited connections subject to your own hardware
- No vendor billing
Which should you pick?
Choose Keycloak if
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Self-hosted, Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Windows, API.
Choose Soketi if
- You need pusher protocol compatibility.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, macOS, Windows.
- You also want presence and private channels.
Questions people ask
- Is Keycloak or Soketi better?
- Neither clearly leads. Keycloak starts at Free and Soketi at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Keycloak or Soketi?
- Keycloak starts at Free and Soketi at Free.
- Does Keycloak or Soketi run on more platforms?
- Keycloak runs on Self-hosted, Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Windows, API. Soketi runs on Linux, macOS, Windows.
- Can I use Keycloak for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is Keycloak best used for?
- Keycloak is most often used for organisations requiring self-hosted identity infrastructure for compliance or data residency, companies with existing ldap/active directory systems needing federated authentication, open-source projects and communities requiring free iam without licensing costs, enterprises building custom identity workflows requiring fine-grained authorisation. Of those, organisations requiring self-hosted identity infrastructure for compliance or data residency and companies with existing ldap/active directory systems needing federated authentication are not what Soketi is typically brought in for.
- What can Keycloak do that Soketi cannot?
- Soketi covers Pusher protocol compatibility, Presence and private channels, Horizontal scaling, App management backends.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
Keycloak: What protocols does Keycloak support?
Keycloak supports OpenID Connect, OAuth 2.0 and SAML 2.0 protocols for authentication and authorisation.
SourceSoketi: Is Soketi still maintained?
Barely. The maintainer has stated that available time is very limited and releases have been sparse; treat it as community-maintained.
Keycloak: Can Keycloak integrate with existing user directories?
Yes. Keycloak supports user federation with LDAP and Active Directory systems, allowing organisations to leverage existing user directories.
SourceSoketi: Do I need to change my client code?
No. Pusher client SDKs and Laravel Echo work by changing the host, port and credentials.
Keycloak: Is Keycloak free?
Yes. Keycloak is fully open-source and free to deploy and use. No licensing fees are required.
SourceSoketi: What does it cost?
Nothing in licence fees. It is MIT licensed; you pay for the server it runs on.
Soketi: What are people moving to?
Laravel Reverb for Laravel applications, and Sockudo, a Rust reimplementation, for others.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- Keycloak vs Penpot
- Keycloak vs Atlantis
- Keycloak vs Vite
- Keycloak vs Depot
- Keycloak vs Ansible
- Keycloak vs Buildkite
- Keycloak vs Coder
- Keycloak vs Bitbucket
- Keycloak vs Sweep
- Keycloak vs Turborepo
- Keycloak vs CodeSandbox
- Keycloak vs Azure DevOps
- Keycloak vs Backstage
- Keycloak vs Claude Code
- Keycloak vs Cloud Native Buildpacks
- Keycloak vs Cody
- Keycloak vs PartyKit
- Keycloak vs Visual Studio Code
- Keycloak vs GNU Emacs
- Keycloak vs Bazel
- Keycloak vs Eclipse IDE
- Keycloak vs Pants Build
- Keycloak vs Swagger UI
- Keycloak vs ConfigCat
- Keycloak vs Cortex
- Keycloak vs Dagger
- Keycloak vs Deno
- Keycloak vs Fig
- Soketi vs Penpot
- Soketi vs Atlantis
- Soketi vs Vite
- Soketi vs Depot
- Soketi vs Ansible
- Soketi vs Buildkite
- Soketi vs Coder
- Soketi vs Bitbucket
- Soketi vs Sweep
- Soketi vs Turborepo
- Soketi vs CodeSandbox
- Soketi vs Azure DevOps
- Soketi vs Backstage
- Soketi vs Claude Code
- Soketi vs Cloud Native Buildpacks
- Soketi vs Cody
- Soketi vs PartyKit
- Soketi vs Visual Studio Code
- Soketi vs GNU Emacs
- Soketi vs Bazel
- Soketi vs Eclipse IDE
- Soketi vs Pants Build
- Soketi vs Swagger UI
- Soketi vs ConfigCat
- Soketi vs Cortex
- Soketi vs Dagger
- Soketi vs Deno
- Soketi vs Fig