---
title: "How Cerbos compares"
description: "Technical comparisons of Cerbos with PlainID, Axiomatics, PingAuthorize, EmpowerID, OPA, Cedar, Permit.io, OpenFGA, Zanzibar."
canonical: "https://www.cerbos.dev/comparisons"
source: "https://www.cerbos.dev/comparisons"
comparisons: 9
---

# How Cerbos compares

> Verdict summaries for all 9 competitor comparisons. Each has a full document with a requirement matrix, concept mapping and limitations, linked below and available as markdown.

## PlainID

Both products answer the same runtime question: may this principal perform this action on this resource? They emphasize different policy lifecycles, governance models, deployment topologies, enforcement patterns, and portability boundaries.

**Choose Cerbos when**

- Application authorization needs repository-native policy review, tests, and deployment without making a central commercial platform part of each decision path.
- The required enforcement model is an application-side authorization check or a query plan applied by the application data layer.
- An Apache 2.0 PDP and a documented exit path are material procurement requirements.

**Consider PlainID when**

- Inline SQL rewriting, row filtering, and column or cell masking are hard requirements.
- Nondeveloper visual authoring and packaged Authorizers outweigh repository-native ownership and PDP portability.

Full comparison: [Repository-native policy and centrally governed policy workflows](https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-plainid) · markdown at https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-plainid.md

## Axiomatics

Axiomatics provides a commercial XACML and ALFA authorization suite. Cerbos combines an Apache 2.0 YAML and CEL policy engine with optional Cerbos Hub and Cerbos Synapse components. Teams with an existing XACML estate should compare policy semantics and operating requirements case by case.

**Choose Cerbos when**

- New application-authorization work needs authorization-specific YAML or JSON policies with CEL conditions and a self-service development loop.
- A stateless Apache 2.0 PDP must run close to workloads in sidecar, shared-service, Kubernetes, serverless, or edge topologies.
- The program can migrate XACML semantics incrementally and validate them with dual evaluation.

**Consider Axiomatics when**

- The existing XACML and ALFA estate is stable, governed, and more expensive to translate than to operate.
- XACML semantic continuity, CAQ entitlement analysis, or specialist XACML services are primary requirements.

Full comparison: [Two approaches to enterprise ABAC](https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-axiomatics) · markdown at https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-axiomatics.md

## PingAuthorize

PingAuthorize is a commercial, self-managed ABAC platform with visual authoring and several runtime integration patterns. Cerbos combines an Apache 2.0 stateless Cerbos PDP with optional Cerbos Hub and Cerbos Synapse components for lifecycle management, distribution, audit aggregation, enrichment, and protocol integrations.

**Choose Cerbos when**

- Services need local authorization decisions through sidecar or DaemonSet PDPs, with shared-service deployment retained where appropriate.
- The authorization layer must remain independent of the identity provider and accept identity context from Ping or another IdP.
- Teams want Git or source-agnostic policy workflows around an Apache 2.0 PDP with published platform tiers.

**Consider PingAuthorize when**

- Ping-native identity and gateway integration removes material implementation work.
- Its visual authoring, packaged gateway topology, and ordered attribute resolvers are firm requirements.

Full comparison: [Different authoring and operating models](https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-ping-authorize) · markdown at https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-ping-authorize.md

## EmpowerID

Both products answer the same runtime question for users and for agents: may this principal perform this action on this resource? They differ in where the product sits in the request path, how much of the surrounding identity program comes with it, and how much of your architecture has to change to adopt it.

**Choose Cerbos when**

- Your team already owns its gateway, agent framework, and secrets manager, and wants a decision layer that does not add another vendor plane to the request path.
- Policy must be a reviewable artifact in your repository, with compile checks and test suites gating every change in CI.
- An Apache 2.0 PDP, published pricing, and a documented exit path are material procurement requirements.
- Authorization has to reach the data layer as a query filter your own ORM executes, rather than as a permitted-resource list the application applies.

**Consider EmpowerID when**

- Credential non-custody or JWS-signed, hash-chained evidence packs are hard requirements to be met by the authorization vendor, because Cerbos provides neither today.
- The programme is identity governance modernization, privileged access management, certification, or SAP identity migration, none of which are Cerbos categories.
- A packaged agent runtime, including an MCP tool gateway, delegation-chain verification, and human-approval gating, is wanted from a single vendor rather than assembled.

Full comparison: [A decision point behind your stack, or an execution plane in front of it](https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-empowerid) · markdown at https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-empowerid.md

## OPA

OPA is a general-purpose policy engine that evaluates Rego policies over structured data. Cerbos is purpose-built for fine-grained authorization across applications, APIs, agents, services, and workloads. The comparison covers both engines and the lifecycle tooling around them.

**Choose Cerbos when**

- The scope is application authorization and teams want principals, resources, actions, roles, conditions, tests, audit, and query planning as product primitives.
- Operating Rego conventions, bundle infrastructure, decision-log collection, or application-specific query adapters creates material maintenance work.
- Policy reviewers prefer an authorization-specific YAML or JSON schema with CEL conditions over a general-purpose language.

**Consider OPA when**

- One engine must cover Kubernetes admission, infrastructure, CI/CD, and policy shapes outside application authorization.
- An existing platform is stable and its Rego expressiveness or ecosystem is a verified requirement.

Full comparison: [Authorization-specific platform or general-purpose policy engine](https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-opa) · markdown at https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-opa.md

## Cedar

Cedar is an Apache 2.0 authorization language and engine ecosystem with strong schema validation and formal analysis. Cerbos combines an Apache 2.0 Cerbos service PDP with an optional Cerbos Hub-managed, in-process WebAssembly ePDP and Cerbos Synapse decision-time data. The right choice starts with the product boundary, not policy syntax alone.

**Choose Cerbos when**

- Multiple services or languages need one independently deployable authorization API rather than an evaluator embedded into each application.
- Policy build, test, signed distribution, audit collection, list-query planning, or decision-time data would otherwise become internal platform work.
- Deployment control matters across the stack: the Cerbos service PDP and Cerbos Synapse are self-hosted, Cerbos Hub ePDP evaluates in-process, and Cerbos Hub Enterprise is available on-premise for restricted and air-gapped environments.

**Consider Cedar when**

- Symbolic equivalence and permissiveness analysis are firm requirements, or its typed model is the platform standard.
- A native in-process Rust or Go implementation, a Java binding, or an embedded engine without a Cerbos Hub dependency is required. An existing Cedar-based AWS workflow can also be decisive.

Full comparison: [An authorization platform with service and embedded runtimes, or an engine toolkit](https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-cedar) · markdown at https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-cedar.md

## Permit.io

Both products target application teams. In its standard hosted model, Permit.io pairs a managed control plane with an open source PDP. Cerbos can run a self-hosted Cerbos PDP from hand-authored policy files with no control plane required for decisions, while Cerbos Hub and Cerbos Synapse add commercial management and enrichment capabilities.

**Choose Cerbos when**

- The default should be a modular authorization platform: an independently deployable open source PDP, optional Cerbos Hub policy lifecycle, and commercial Cerbos Synapse enrichment.
- The application team wants YAML or JSON policy with CEL rather than generated Rego or Cedar.
- Policy lifecycle management and decision-time data enrichment should remain separate, optional platform concerns.

**Consider Permit.io when**

- A low code policy editor is the preferred authoring surface for developers and nondeveloper stakeholders.
- Embeddable access request, approval, and user management components are product requirements.
- OPAL-based policy and data distribution matches the operating model the team wants.

Full comparison: [Two developer-focused products, two default operating models](https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-permit) · markdown at https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-permit.md

## OpenFGA

OpenFGA primarily evaluates whether relationships exist using a model and stored or contextual tuples. Cerbos PDP evaluates whether an action is allowed using policy and request-supplied attributes. The right choice depends on the shape of the authorization problem.

**Choose Cerbos when**

- The default should combine an independently deployable open source service PDP, an optional commercial Cerbos Hub-managed WebAssembly ePDP, and commercial Cerbos Synapse enrichment around attribute-led authorization.
- Application relationship data should remain in existing systems rather than a second materialized tuple store.
- The decision service must run locally and independently from a managed authorization API.

**Consider OpenFGA when**

- Permissions form a deep relationship graph with nested groups, folders, sharing, or delegation.
- Native ListObjects and ListUsers operations are central to the application.
- A Zanzibar-style model is the intended source of truth for authorization relationships.

Full comparison: [A relationship graph or a policy engine](https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-openfga) · markdown at https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-openfga.md

## Zanzibar

Zanzibar is Google's internal authorization system, documented in a 2019 USENIX paper, which inspired open source systems including OpenFGA and SpiceDB. Cerbos PDP is a policy engine; the broader Cerbos platform also includes Cerbos Hub, Cerbos Synapse, and enforcement integrations.

**Choose Cerbos when**

- The default should combine an independently deployable open source PDP, optional Cerbos Hub policy lifecycle, and commercial Cerbos Synapse enrichment around contextual policy.
- Relationship facts already live in application systems and can be supplied for each decision.
- A stateless, locally deployed PDP is preferable to operating a separate relationship database.

**Consider Zanzibar when**

- The authorization domain is a large, dynamic graph with recursive inheritance or delegated sharing.
- Both principal-to-resource and resource-to-principal queries must be native operations.
- The system needs Zanzibar-style consistency controls across stored authorization relationships.

Full comparison: [Policy-first or relationship-graph-first authorization](https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-zanzibar) · markdown at https://www.cerbos.dev/cerbos-vs-zanzibar.md