Softwr

Developer Tools · head to head

Keycloak vs Transmit Security

Keycloak logo

Keycloak

Developer Tools

Open-source identity and access management server.

From
Free
Free plan
Yes
Full reviewWebsite
Transmit Security logo

Transmit Security

Cybersecurity

Customer identity platform built around passwordless and fraud signals

From
On request
Free plan
No
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only Keycloak has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: Keycloak requires self-hosted deployment and operational expertise to install, configure and maintain; Transmit Security pricing is not published, so it cannot be compared early against competitors that post per monthly active user rates, and the eventual quote often mixes per-user and per-transaction units.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Keycloak and Transmit Security actually diverge.

Attributes where Keycloak and Transmit Security differ
AttributeKeycloakTransmit Security
Starting priceFreeOn request
Pricing modelopen-sourcequote
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsSelf-hosted, Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Windows, APIWeb, iOS, Android
CategoryDeveloper ToolsCybersecurity

Identical on both: user rating (Not yet rated).

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 Transmit Security does not also cover.

Only in Transmit Security

  • Passwordless authentication
  • Detection and response
  • Identity verification
  • Orchestration
  • Account recovery
  • Bot and automation detection
  • Composable APIs

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 Transmit Security
  • Companies with existing LDAP/Active Directory systems needing federated authenticationnot Transmit Security
  • Open-source projects and communities requiring free IAM without licensing costsnot Transmit Security
  • Enterprises building custom identity workflows requiring fine-grained authorisationnot Transmit Security
  • Teams with sufficient operational expertise to manage infrastructurenot Transmit Security

Transmit Security

  • A bank moving a consumer base off passwords to passkeys without losing customers at the migration stepnot Keycloak
  • An insurer whose account recovery flow is the main account takeover route and needs risk scoring inside itnot Keycloak
  • A retailer that wants bot detection at login rather than only at checkoutnot Keycloak
  • An organisation replacing an in-house customer login system that has become an unfunded engineering liabilitynot 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

Transmit Security

  • Pricing is not published, so it cannot be compared early against competitors that post per monthly active user rates, and the eventual quote often mixes per-user and per-transaction units.
  • Migrating a live consumer identity base is a high risk project, and credential migration constraints mean some users must re-register, which shows up as measurable churn.
  • The vendor is smaller than the identity incumbents, so the partner and systems integrator pool is thinner and staffing a large programme is harder.
  • Workforce identity is not the focus, so an organisation wanting one vendor for employees and customers will still run two platforms.
  • The fraud detection value depends on traffic volume feeding the models, so a smaller deployment gets less benefit from exactly the capability that justified choosing it over a plain identity provider.

Pricing, plan by plan

Keycloak

Free
  • Open-sourceFree
    • Full platform functionality
    • Self-hosted deployment
    • Community support

Transmit Security

On request
  • Transmit Security Platform$undefined/year
    • Priced per monthly active user or per transaction by service
    • Services licensed individually or as a platform
    • Free developer tier for evaluation

Which should you pick?

Choose Keycloak if

  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Self-hosted, Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Windows, API.
Keycloak review

Choose Transmit Security if

  • You need passwordless authentication.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want detection and response.
Transmit Security review

Questions people ask

Is Keycloak or Transmit Security better?
Neither clearly leads. Keycloak starts at Free and Transmit Security at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Keycloak or Transmit Security?
Keycloak has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Keycloak and On request for Transmit Security.
Does Keycloak or Transmit Security run on more platforms?
Keycloak runs on Self-hosted, Docker, Kubernetes, Linux, Windows, API. Transmit Security runs on Web, iOS, Android.
Can I use Keycloak for free?
Yes. Keycloak has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. Transmit Security starts at On request.
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 Transmit Security is typically brought in for.
What can Keycloak do that Transmit Security cannot?
Transmit Security covers Passwordless authentication, Detection and response, Identity verification, Orchestration.

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.

Source
Transmit Security: Do we have to replace our existing identity provider?

No. The services are composable, so detection and response or verification can be adopted alongside an existing provider such as Okta or Entra ID.

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.

Source
Transmit Security: Is fraud detection an extra licence?

It is a separate service, but it is designed to run inside the authentication flow rather than as a bolted-on second vendor. Confirm which services are in your quote.

Keycloak: Is Keycloak free?

Yes. Keycloak is fully open-source and free to deploy and use. No licensing fees are required.

Source
Transmit Security: Is there a way to try it?

Yes, a free developer tier exists for evaluation, though production use is an enterprise agreement.

Share

Related pages

More on Keycloak

More on Transmit Security

Keep looking

Other head to heads