PUBLISHED FACTS // beszel vs authentik
Beszel vs Authentik
| FACT | Beszel | Authentik |
|---|---|---|
| SUMMARY | Lightweight server monitoring and telemetry | Identity provider, SSO and IAM |
| VERIFICATION | ◆ AI PROPOSED | ● HUMAN REVIEWED |
| LICENSE | MIT | MIT |
| PRIMARY DEPLOYMENT | DOCKER | COMPOSE |
| LINUX SUPPORT | supported | supported |
| ARCHITECTURES | amd64 · arm64 | amd64 · arm64 |
| RESOURCE NOTES | Designed for lightweight monitoring; size storage around retained historical metrics and agent count. | Plan capacity for server, worker, PostgreSQL, Redis, and the identity traffic it protects. |
| DEPENDENCIES | A hub plus agents; Docker is the documented primary path for the hub. | Docker Compose with PostgreSQL, Redis, and a durable secret-key configuration. |
| AUTHENTICATION | Built-in accounts; assess upstream authentication and exposure guidance before public access. | Identity provider with OIDC, OAuth2, SAML, LDAP, MFA, and directory federation capabilities. |
| BACKUP NOTES | Back up the hub data volume and retain the configuration needed to reconnect agents. | Back up PostgreSQL, media/customization data, and the secret material required to restore encrypted settings. |
| TRADE-OFFS | Focused infrastructure telemetry rather than a full logs, traces, and alerting platform. | Powerful identity workflows introduce operational complexity; model tenants, flows, and recovery procedures deliberately. |