Authelia vs Authentik in 2026: Which self-hosted IdP should you choose

SS. B. Writer April 01, 2026 4 min read

Authelia and Authentik both aim to solve the same core challenge: giving users a consistent login experience with MFA and SSO across self-hosted applications. Both can run in proxy mode, both can enforce MFA, and both can sit in front of apps that lack native support. The difference is in scope. Authelia is smaller, faster to deploy, and specializes in being a forward-auth gateway. Authentik is larger, acts as a full identity provider, and includes broader protocol coverage, customizable flows, and admin tooling.

Snapshot comparison

• Authelia delivers centralized login, MFA, SSO, WebAuthn support, and forward authentication behind reverse proxies.
• Authentik delivers MFA, SSO, proxy mode, OIDC, OAuth2, SAML, LDAP, custom flows, an admin UI, and impersonation.

What does Authelia provide?

Authelia’s design centers on being lightweight. It places a login wall in front of services, adds MFA (OTP, hardware keys, WebAuthn, push via external providers), and centralizes authentication without replacing upstream identity stores. PostgreSQL and Redis handle scale. The project emphasizes hardened releases with signed builds. Authorization is basic—rules rather than resource-level policies.

When to choose Authelia

• Environments want MFA and SSO across apps behind Traefik, NGINX, or HAProxy without running a full IdP.
• Teams value small footprint and quick rollout via Docker or Helm.
• Operators prefer less moving parts and a tighter attack surface.

Authelia trade offs

• Limited to access rules, not fine-grained authorization.
• Push notifications rely on third-party providers.
• No managed option; self-hosting is required.

What does Authentik provide?

Authentik behaves like a full IdP. It offers MFA, SSO, OIDC, OAuth2, SAML, LDAP, proxy mode for apps that lack support, WebAuthn and passkeys, custom flows and policies, and impersonation for support teams. The Remote Access Component extends coverage to RDP, SSH, and VNC. These capabilities make Authentik flexible but also heavier to deploy and learn. Advanced scenarios may involve Python scripting.

When to choose Authentik

• Organizations want protocol coverage and proxy mode in one tool.
• Teams need custom flows, onboarding stages, GeoIP checks, or impersonation.
• Remote access to desktops and shells benefits from the built-in component.

Authentik trade offs

• Setup complexity and heavier resource use.
• Occasional double-login issues if apps lack SSO support.
• No managed option; ongoing operations remain in-house.

Security considerations for evaluators

Community discussions highlight security posture differences. A widely referenced thread compares CVEs: Authelia has had fewer reported vulnerabilities, while Authentik has had more, including some critical ones. The difference is likely due to surface area—Authentik ships an admin UI and broader feature set. See the full thread here: Reddit discussion link.

Typical pitfalls to avoid

• Treating Authelia as if it were a full IdP rather than a gateway with rules.
• Jumping into Authentik without planning flows and policies in advance.
• Forgetting that apps need proper SSO support to avoid double-login issues.

Insights from the homelab community

In the homelab community, one common theme is that many built-in login solutions provided by apps are too shallow. They lack MFA, do not integrate with other services, and create credential sprawl. The appeal of Authelia and Authentik comes from solving this problem across the stack. Users point out that both tools are not perfect drop-in replacements but bring consistency. The choice often comes down to appetite for complexity: Authelia is easy to stand up, while Authentik feels like running a mini enterprise IdP. Community voices often stress that either solution is a major upgrade over scattered, app-by-app accounts.

Adding fine-grained authorization

Both Authelia and Authentik concentrate on authentication and access control at the entry point. Neither is positioned here as a dedicated fine-grained authorization engine for resource-level permissions across apps, APIs, workloads, or AI agents. For that, a policy decision point such as Cerbos sits alongside them. Cerbos evaluates policies outside the codebase, logs every decision, and delivers sub-millisecond responses. This keeps login concerns separate from authorization logic and avoids hardcoding permissions in each app.

When to add a PDP

• When least-privilege enforcement and audit logs are required.
• When contextual, attribute-based decisions are needed across services.
• When permission changes should roll out without redeploying code.

Decision checklist

• Lean setups behind reverse proxies benefit from Authelia. Broad IdP needs point to Authentik.
• Preference for low footprint vs willingness to operate a larger system should guide the choice.
• For complex, fine-grained permissions, pair either solution with a PDP.

Bottom line

Authelia and Authentik overlap more than they differ. Both offer MFA, SSO, and proxy support. The distinction lies in ambition: Authelia is lightweight and specializes in the gateway role, while Authentik aspires to be a full IdP. Choosing depends on whether simplicity or scope matters more. For granular authorization, integrate Cerbos PDP. For advanced workflows, policy lifecycle management, and team collaboration, consider Cerbos Hub.