Authorization can quietly become a mess if it's not handled the right way from the start. That's where a great authorization tool comes into play. Cerbos is one such authorization product. However, depending on what you're building and how your team works, Cerbos might not check every box.
Whether you're looking for something that fits more naturally into a specific tech stack, offers a more visual policy experience, or handles both identity and authorization in one place, it's worth knowing what else is out there. In this post, we'll walk through four solid alternatives to Cerbos, break down what makes each one unique, and help you figure out which might be the right fit for your project.
Cerbos is not always the best fit for everyone. Some teams may want a solution that's easier to set up or manage, especially if DevOps resources are limited. Others might need features Cerbos doesn't prioritize, such as built-in user management, real-time policy updates, native support for multi-tenant applications, or advanced permission models like ABAC or ReBAC.
So what makes a strong alternative to Cerbos? That really depends on your needs, but generally, you'll want something that strikes the right balance between flexibility, ease of use, and long-term maintainability. For some teams, that means picking a tool with a lower learning curve or a more visual policy editor. For others, it might mean tighter integration with the rest of their stack or an opinionated approach that helps speed up implementation. Whatever the case, it's worth exploring the options before committing to a single approach. Let's jump into four solid alternatives to Cerbos and break down what makes each one worth a look.
.png)
Oso is a developer-first authorization framework that brings powerful access control into your application using a declarative policy language called Polar. Unlike Cerbos, which externalizes policy logic into a separate engine, Oso is designed to be embedded directly into your app, giving you tighter integration and more immediate control over how permissions are evaluated.
If you're looking for something more tightly coupled with your application code, Oso is a great alternative. It supports a wide range of access patterns, including role-based access control (RBAC), attribute-based access control (ABAC), and relationship-based access control (ReBAC). This makes it especially useful for applications with complex or evolving permission needs. Oso also comes with helpful tooling like policy testing, decision tracing, and a REPL for debugging logic. All of these features make your developer experience smoother than a more barebones policy engine like Cerbos.
In my opinion, if you're a company that values having authorization logic close to your application code and wants powerful debugging capabilities, Oso should be at the top of your list.
Why Oso is better than Cerbos:
What is Oso's Pricing?
Oso's pricing is designed to support a variety of different businesses. The developer-tier is totally free. The first paid-tier is a startup-tier at $149/mo. If you're larger or growing quickly Oso will work with you to determine custom pricing that can include migration services if needed.
.png)
Auth0, now part of Okta, is a developer-friendly identity platform that handles things like authentication, user management, and access control. It's known for being easy to integrate, making it a decent solution for teams who want to offload identity and authorization complexity.
While Auth0 isn't the best for authorization, it's good if you're looking for the convenience of a managed solution that bundles both authentication and authorization in one place.
Do note that Auth0 doesn't offer the same kind of policy-as-code flexibility or self-hosting option that Cerbos does. However, for teams who want to move fast, stay secure, and integrate with minimal friction, Auth0 provides a lot of value out of the box.
Pros:
Cons:
Pricing:
Auth0 offers a free tier as well as premium tiers. The first premium tier goes for $35/month for up to 500 users. The next tier offered is the professionals tier for up to 1,000 MAUs priced at $240/month. Lastly, they offer an enterprise tier, which comes with custom pricing based on a consultation.
Permit.io is another authorization platform built to bring fine-grained access control to your app. It sits on top of open-source policy engines like OPA, and gives you a management layer with a visual UI, real-time updates, audit logs, and integrations.
Permit.io is similar to Cerbos, but adds tools for managing roles, tenants, and permissions across different environments. If Cerbos feels too hands-on or DevOps-heavy, Permit.io might be the smoother path.
It can be a better option than Cerbos for multi-tenant SaaS apps or any product where permissions change frequently and need to be updated live without redeploying.
If you're building a multi-tenant application and need both developer-friendly policy management and business-user-friendly interfaces, Permit.io could be a good consideration.
Pros:
Cons:
Pricing:
Permit.io offers a few different tiers, with the cheapest being the community edition, which is free. The next tier available is the startup tier, starting at $5/month for up to 25,000 MAUs and 100 tenants. They also offer a pro tier for up to 50,000 MAUs and 20,000 tenants beginning at $25/month.
Keycloak is an open-source access management solution that includes a built-in authorization engine alongside its authentication and user federation features. It's often thought of as an identity platform, but it also includes authorization functionality . This is mostly used by Keycloak customers who need both identity and fine-grained access control tied to resources, roles, and scopes. The authorization features include role-based access control (RBAC), resource-based permissions, scopes, policies, and permission tickets. These are configurable through a built-in UI or admin API.
Unlike Cerbos, which is policy-as-code focused, Keycloak's authorization logic is more tightly integrated into its platform. That said, it's powerful and flexible enough to model real-world access patterns, including multi-tenant use cases and complex business rules. Keycloak isn't a bad choice if you prefer a declarative, centralized model over embedding logic in code.
If you're a company that needs both identity and authorization in one self-hosted package and doesn't mind the complexity that comes with it, Keycloak could save you from managing multiple systems.
Pros:
Cons:
Pricing:
For organizations building customer-facing applications, Keycloak can be economical in price since it doesn't have per-user licensing fees.
Feature / ToolCerbosOso CloudAuth0Permit.ioKeycloakTypePolicy-as-code engineEmbedded auth frameworkManaged IAM w/ auth featuresManaged + policy-as-codeSelf-hosted auth platformHostingSelf-hosted / DockerEmbedded in app codeFully managedCloud + self-hostedSelf-hosted (on-prem or cloud)Policy ModelYAML-based, decoupledPolar (DSL), inline in appRoles + rules + actionsUI + YAML (OPA under the hood)Role, resource, scope-basedAccess PatternsRBAC, ABAC, multi-tenantRBAC, ABAC, ReBACRBAC + custom token logicRBAC, ABAC, multi-tenantRBAC, resource policiesPolicy-as-CodeYesPartial (via DSL)NoYesNoAdmin UINone (code only)NoneYesYesYesReal-Time UpdatesManual redeployCode-level change requiredYesYesYes (via admin UI/API)Best ForDev teams wanting full controlEmbedded control in codeFast identity/auth comboScalable apps needing hybridComplex, self-hosted systems
Authorization isn't just a backend task or a security checkbox. It's a core part of how your product works and how users experience it. While Cerbos offers a clean, developer-centric way to manage access control with policy-as-code, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution.
Before you make a decision on which authorization tool to use, it could be worth your time to investigate other authorization products, such as Oso, which can offer a better developer experience.
