Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Sigstore vs Zipkin

Sigstore logo

Sigstore

Cybersecurity

Free public signing and transparency infrastructure for open source artifacts

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Zipkin logo

Zipkin

Cloud

Distributed tracing system for microservice latency

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Sigstore the security model depends on somebody watching the log. The documentation states that compromise of an identity provider or of Fulcio itself is detectable only if third parties monitor the transparency log, the monitoring tool is a community-tier rather than core project, and almost no consumer runs one.; Zipkin less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
  • They diverge on capability: Sigstore covers Fulcio, Zipkin covers Trace collection and search.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Sigstore and Zipkin actually diverge.

Attributes where Sigstore and Zipkin differ
AttributeSigstoreZipkin
Pricing modelOpen source, public instance free to useOpen source, no licence fee
PlatformsWeb, Linux, macOS, Windows, Self-hostedLinux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted
CategoryCybersecurityCloud

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), 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 Sigstore

  • Fulcio
  • Rekor
  • Keyless signing
  • Multi-language clients
  • Timestamp authority
  • Neutral governance

Only in Zipkin

  • Trace collection and search
  • Dependency diagram
  • Simple deployment
  • Pluggable storage

What people use each for

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

Sigstore

  • Open source projects signing releases without running a certificate authoritynot Zipkin
  • Organisations meeting a signed-artifact requirement without buying a signing productnot Zipkin
  • Publishing provenance that a consumer can verify independently of younot Zipkin
  • Self-hosting the same components where a public log is unacceptablenot Zipkin

Zipkin

  • Adding distributed tracing quickly without standing up heavy infrastructurenot Sigstore
  • Java and Spring Boot estates, where instrumentation support is long-establishednot Sigstore
  • Small deployments where Jaeger is more than the problem requiresnot Sigstore

Where each one falls short

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

Sigstore

  • The security model depends on somebody watching the log. The documentation states that compromise of an identity provider or of Fulcio itself is detectable only if third parties monitor the transparency log, the monitoring tool is a community-tier rather than core project, and almost no consumer runs one.
  • It is a 99.5 percent objective with no service level agreement, which permits several hours of downtime a month and offers no remedy. A pipeline that signs on every build has taken a hard dependency on a free service with no contract behind it.
  • Log scale is a live engineering problem rather than a theoretical one. The active shard holds billions of entries, the log has already been sharded twice, and sharding version 1 requires stopping traffic, which is why a replacement was built.
  • Ten-minute certificates make trust depend on log availability. Verifying an older signature relies on the log entry proving it was made inside that window, so a lost or unreachable entry can render a valid artifact unverifiable.
  • Migration debt is substantial and ongoing. Version 2 of the log is generally available but not the public default, the signing client has an announced breaking release ahead, some official clients lag the new log format, and a post-quantum migration is named as the next break after that.

Zipkin

  • Less active development and smaller community momentum than Jaeger
  • Fewer features: sampling, storage options and UI are all more limited
  • The interface is dated and slower to work with on large trace volumes
  • Tracing alone still leaves metrics and logs in separate tools during an incident

Pricing, plan by plan

Sigstore

Free
  • Public good instanceFree
    • Free to everyone with no contract
    • 99.5 percent availability objective, not an agreement
    • 100KB cap per attestation upload
  • Self-hostedFree
    • Apache-2.0
    • Run your own Fulcio and Rekor
    • Rekor v2 available for self-hosters

Zipkin

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

Which should you pick?

Choose Sigstore if

  • You need fulcio.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, Linux, macOS, Windows, Self-hosted.
  • You also want rekor.
Sigstore review

Choose Zipkin if

  • You need trace collection and search.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
  • You also want dependency diagram.
Zipkin review

Questions people ask

Is Sigstore or Zipkin better?
Neither clearly leads. Sigstore starts at Free and Zipkin at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Sigstore or Zipkin?
Sigstore starts at Free and Zipkin at Free.
Does Sigstore or Zipkin run on more platforms?
Sigstore runs on Web, Linux, macOS, Windows, Self-hosted. Zipkin runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
Can I use Sigstore for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Sigstore best used for?
Sigstore is most often used for open source projects signing releases without running a certificate authority, organisations meeting a signed-artifact requirement without buying a signing product, publishing provenance that a consumer can verify independently of you, self-hosting the same components where a public log is unacceptable. Of those, open source projects signing releases without running a certificate authority and organisations meeting a signed-artifact requirement without buying a signing product are not what Zipkin is typically brought in for.
What can Sigstore do that Zipkin cannot?
Sigstore covers Fulcio, Rekor, Keyless signing, Multi-language clients. Zipkin covers Trace collection and search, Dependency diagram, Simple deployment, Pluggable storage.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Sigstore: Is the public instance really free?

Yes, with no contract and no paid tier. That is also the weakness: a 99.5 percent objective with no agreement, no remedy and support through Slack.

Zipkin: Is Zipkin free?

Yes, open source with no licence fee.

Sigstore: Has the public log moved to Rekor v2?

No. Version 2 reached general availability in October 2025 and self-hosters can use it, but the public instance still defaults to version 1 and the project has said it will for the foreseeable future.

Zipkin: Zipkin or Jaeger?

Jaeger has more momentum, more features and CNCF backing. Zipkin is lighter and quicker to stand up, and remains well supported in the Java and Spring ecosystem.

Sigstore: Does Sigstore make my dependencies safe?

No, and this is a category error worth avoiding. It tells you who published something. It has no knowledge of what the artifact contains or whether it is vulnerable.

Zipkin: Does Zipkin work with OpenTelemetry?

Yes. OpenTelemetry can export to Zipkin, which is now the usual way to instrument for it.

Sigstore: What are the rate limits?

Not published. Only the 100KB cap per attestation upload is documented, so do not design a high-volume pipeline around assumed throughput.

Sigstore: Should we self-host it?

If a public record of every signature is unacceptable, or if a free service with no agreement cannot sit in your build path, then yes. Otherwise the public instance is what most projects use.

Share

Related pages

More on Sigstore

More on Zipkin

Keep looking

Other head to heads