If you are intrigued into the differences, you can read some of them here [2]
Oh and judging from your username: it could be interesting to you... because we use eventsourcing and cqrs ;-)
Disclaimer: I am one of the authors
There are a lot of other improvements, but if that's the only dealbreaker, v2 should take care of it.
What do you not like of the new pricing? The pay-as-you-go approach?
The background to this is, that we got many customers asking for features on the lower tiers and that many of them wanted to have a more linear scaling in their business cases. On the other hand we wanted to make sure, that even from the start you get all security features without paywalling them.
The 25K request roughly translate to 10K user per Month and you will be able to get that without a credit card :-)
I'm really impressed with your strategy and v2 looks like a really great upgrade.
How does Zitadel differ/compare? Do you have similar goals as an organization?
- ZITADEL: If you want turnkey solution built for the cloud with a great support for B2B, a strong audit trail and self-hosting, but also the option for SaaS - Ory: If you want flexibility to customize all the stuff but are aware that it is not as turnkey as ZITADEL and Keycloak - Keycloak: If you want turnkey with a high maturity and a lot of features but some lack in regard to B2B, cloud native and support
This more or less reflects my opinion about Ory. I like the way they built their suite because its totally flexible. But it dislike the fact that it does not feel like a turnkey solution and needs some more work than plugin in a OIDC client.
So what we think and aim for is that ZITADEL combines the best of Auth0 and Keycloak [1] while bringing some unique features to the table. For example an unlimited audit trail (built with event sourcing), great self-service capabilities for B2B and B2C cases (customers can manage their own org, user, federation, access) and the possibility to soon run "serverless" (well at least as serverless container). With our cloud service we also allow customer soon to move their data around (see data location [2]). And all of this while being totally open source.
1. Funny image for this https://twitter.com/ffo_sesp/status/1519655412752162818?s=20...
I too would prefer to use PG than Cockroach, if only because I have ops experience with PG. But Cockroach is certainly intriguing.
1) We think providing an embedded DB of some kind for easy to use cases with ZITADEL might be favourable to some of you (think Sqlite or an embedded CockroachDB ) 2) To allow plain Postgresql besides CockroachDB should be an easy thing to do since we already make use of PG wire protocol. We plan to address this in a 2.X release
What do you think of this? Or what DB would on your Wishlist?
My own personal preference would be if you could please support PG, because in that case I could be confident of going into production with what I configure, even if it's less scaleable than CockroachDB. I'd really prefer to be learning about how Zitadel works, rather than learning CDB or trying to remember sqlite cli commands.
I'm happy to give CDB a spin once Zitadel 2.0 comes out, but it will add to the burden of onboarding it into my stack, and I'd think that's something you'd like to avoid going forward :)
I created an issue for further tracking https://github.com/zitadel/zitadel/issues/3598