PUBLISHED FACTS // authentik vs forgejo
Authentik vs Forgejo
| FACT | Authentik | Forgejo |
|---|---|---|
| SUMMARY | Identity provider, SSO and IAM | Community-governed software forge |
| VERIFICATION | ● HUMAN REVIEWED | ● HUMAN REVIEWED |
| LICENSE | MIT | MIT |
| PRIMARY DEPLOYMENT | COMPOSE | COMPOSE |
| LINUX SUPPORT | supported | supported |
| ARCHITECTURES | amd64 · arm64 | amd64 · arm64 |
| RESOURCE NOTES | Plan capacity for server, worker, PostgreSQL, Redis, and the identity traffic it protects. | A small team can start with modest CPU and memory; repository storage grows with projects and Actions workloads. |
| DEPENDENCIES | Docker Compose with PostgreSQL, Redis, and a durable secret-key configuration. | Docker Compose, persistent repository storage, and a supported database for production use. |
| AUTHENTICATION | Identity provider with OIDC, OAuth2, SAML, LDAP, MFA, and directory federation capabilities. | Local accounts plus OAuth2/OIDC and LDAP integration options. |
| BACKUP NOTES | Back up PostgreSQL, media/customization data, and the secret material required to restore encrypted settings. | Back up the database, repository data, configuration, and SSH keys as one recoverable set. |
| TRADE-OFFS | Powerful identity workflows introduce operational complexity; model tenants, flows, and recovery procedures deliberately. | It has a smaller integration ecosystem than GitHub; advanced enterprise governance may need companion tooling. |