Quite a confusing comparison, especially against Keycloak. From what I can tell the open source part doesn't seem to do anything Keycloak doesn't do, but many of Keycloak's features aren't on the list.

The chart also assumes you're using the hosted solution (as 2FA isn't even available on the open source version according to that same page). If that's the case, it should compare against any hosted Keycloak provider, because SLA and management are readily available. I suppose the table could also compare the open source versions, but that wouldn't be very advantage to SuperTokens with major features still marked "coming soon".

I'm not sure why Keycloak wouldn't offer "UI and backend customisability". The theme guide shows quite a lot of customisation (https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/server_development/#the...) to the point where you can restructure the HTML itself.

One thing Keycloak lacks is an easy to use API, using complex OpenID/OAuth/etc. APIs and two language specific libraries instead. That seems like a much more sensible option to distinguish between these products. As someone currently using Keycloak (and not experiencing any problems with it after setup) this comparison just isn't very convincing.