Compare · every row scored both waysBuilding · 5 planned

Where the alternatives are better, said on our own page.

These pages are read by the vendors they name. A comparison that loses no rows is read as marketing and ranks like it — so each of the following states, first, what the other approach does better, and only then what it cannot do.

OAuth 2.0 Token Exchange (RFC 8693)

/compare/oauth-token-exchange
Where it wins

A ratified standard with implementations in every major language, audited for a decade, and an actor claim that genuinely expresses delegation. If your chain is one hop deep, this is the correct answer and adding anything to it is overhead.

Where it cannot go

No ordered chain of principals, no per-link attenuation, no revocation pointer, and no representation of a spend or approval limit. At two hops the actor claim stops carrying enough to refuse on.

SPIFFE / SPIRE

/compare/spiffe
Where it wins

The strongest workload identity model in production anywhere, with real attestation of what a workload is rather than what it claims. For machine-to-machine inside an infrastructure boundary it is better than anything here.

Where it cannot go

Identity of a workload, not authority of a principal. SPIFFE answers what is calling; it does not carry who authorised the call, on whose behalf, or up to what limit — and does not cross an organizational trust boundary by design.

W3C Verifiable Credentials

/compare/verifiable-credentials
Where it wins

A genuine standard for portable signed claims with a mature ecosystem, selective disclosure, and no dependence on the issuer being reachable at verification time. The data model is more general than ours.

Where it cannot go

Generality is the cost. There is no agreed delegation-chain profile, no attenuation semantics, and no shared scope vocabulary, so two implementations that both conform still cannot verify each other’s agents.

Commercial agent-identity platforms

/compare/agent-identity-platforms
Where it wins

Shipping today, with enforcement, audits, certifications and support contracts that this property does not have. If your decision is due this quarter and you need a policy engine in production, they have one and we do not.

Where it cannot go

The credential is issued and verified inside one vendor’s system. A counterparty who is not their customer cannot check it, which makes the network exactly as large as their customer list.

Building it yourself

/compare/build-it-yourself
Where it wins

Complete control, no vendor, and for a single-organization deployment it is a few hundred lines around an existing JWT library. Many teams should do this and the spec on this site is public so that they can.

Where it cannot go

The value is in two parties agreeing on the same format. A private format verifies only inside your own walls, which is the one property the whole exercise was for.

The row we lose on every one of these pages

Every alternative above is in production somewhere at scale today. Flashy ID has a live signing key, a live verifier and an unbuilt policy engine. If your decision is due this quarter and you need enforcement rather than proof, the honest recommendation is one of the rows above — and this sentence stays on the page until that stops being true.