πŸ”œ Join us at NHIcon: The Rise of Agentic AI Security on January 27th 2026

Claim your Free Ticket 🎟️

πŸ”œ Join us at NHIcon: The Rise of Agentic AI Security on January 27th 2026

Claim your Free Ticket 🎟️

Authentication Methods
Comparison Guide

Compare API Keys, OAuth 2.0, OIDC, mTLS, and HMAC across delegation capabilities, permission granularity, security score, and scalability factors.

Type

Delegation

Permission Granularity

Public Environment Fit

Scalability

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Method
Delegation
Permission Granularity
Public Environment Fit
Scalability
Security Score
API Keys
Delegation
❌ None
  • No delegation capability
  • Direct application-to-service authentication
  • Cannot represent user consent or third-party access
Permission Granularity
πŸ”΄ Poor
  • Application-level identification only
  • Coarse-grained, all-or-nothing access
  • No native scope or permission framework
  • Custom server-side implementation required
Public Environment Fit
βœ… Excellent
  • Perfect for public APIs
  • Simple developer onboarding
  • No complex PKI or certificate distribution
  • Widely understood by external developers
  • Easy integration for third parties
Scalability
⚠️ Moderate
  • Simple to scale technically
  • Management overhead increases with key count
  • Monitoring and rotation complexity grows
  • Database lookup performance considerations
Security Score
πŸ”΄ Poor

2.8

OAuth 2.0
Delegation
βœ… Excellent
  • Core purpose: Delegated authorization
  • User grants third-party app limited access
  • Authorization Code flow for user delegation
  • Client Credentials for service delegation
Permission Granularity
βœ… Excellent
  • Scope-based permissions
  • Fine-grained access control
  • Resource owner can limit permissions
  • Standardized permission model across APIs
Public Environment Fit
βœ… Excellent
  • Industry standard for public APIs
  • Handles untrusted public clients
  • No certificate distribution to third parties
  • Mature ecosystem and tooling
  • Developer-friendly documentation
Scalability
βœ… Excellent
  • Stateless token-based architecture
  • Horizontal scaling friendly
  • Short-lived tokens reduce management overhead
  • Industry-standard tooling and libraries
Security Score
βœ… Excellent

7.3

OIDC
Delegation
βœ… Excellent
  • Built on OAuth 2.0 delegation model
  • Adds user identity to delegation
  • Perfect for "Login with X" scenarios
  • Combines authentication + authorization delegation
Permission Granularity
βœ… Excellent
  • Inherits OAuth 2.0 scopes
  • Adds identity claims for ABAC
  • Standardized user attribute access
  • Fine-grained user data permissions
Public Environment Fit
βœ… Excellent
  • Perfect for public user-facing apps
  • Federated identity across domains
  • No certificate management for clients
  • Standard protocol with broad support
  • Enables "Sign in with X" patterns
Scalability
βœ… Excellent
  • Inherits OAuth 2.0 scalability
  • JWT tokens are stateless and cacheable
  • Federated identity reduces auth server load
  • Standard protocol with mature tooling
Security Score
βœ… Excellent

7.7

mTLS
Delegation
❌ None
  • Direct machine-to-machine authentication
  • No delegation concept
  • Certificate represents machine identity only
  • Cannot express user consent or third-party access
Permission Granularity
πŸ”΄ Poor
  • Strong identity verification only
  • No native authorization framework
  • Requires separate permission system
  • Certificate identifies "who" not "what they can do"
Public Environment Fit
πŸ”΄ Poor
  • Not suitable for public APIs
  • Requires PKI certificate distribution
  • Complex client onboarding process
  • Certificate management burden on external developers
  • Debugging handshake issues difficult
Scalability
πŸ”΄ Challenging
  • PKI management complexity
  • Certificate lifecycle overhead
  • Revocation list management
  • Complex to scale certificate distribution
Security Score
βœ… Excellent

8.8

HMAC
Delegation
❌ None
  • Direct service-to-service authentication
  • No delegation mechanism
  • Shared secret represents direct trust relationship
  • Cannot represent third-party access
Permission Granularity
πŸ”΄ Poor
  • Authentication only, no authorization
  • Verifies message sender identity
  • No inherent permission information
  • Requires separate authorization implementation
Public Environment Fit
⚠️ Moderate
  • Challenging for public APIs
  • Requires secure out-of-band secret sharing
  • Complex onboarding for external developers
  • Good for webhooks and trusted partners
  • Signature implementation precision required
Scalability
πŸ‘πŸ» Good
  • Stateless verification
  • Simple to implement and scale
  • Low computational overhead
  • Secret management complexity moderate
Security Score
πŸ‘πŸ» Good

6.2

We couldn't find entries that correspond to the current filters.

Security vs Complexity Analysis

Key Takeaways

For Delegation

OAuth 2.0 and OIDC excel at delegated authorization, while API Keys and HMAC provide direct authentication only.

For Corporate Use

API Keys, mTLS, and HMAC are excellent for internal corporate APIs with simpler requirements.

For Scalability

OAuth 2.0 and OIDC provide the best scalability with stateless, token-based architectures.

DecorativeDecorative

Security&Complexity Scoring: The Methodology

How We Score Each Method

We evaluate each authentication method using two main dimensions. Security is scored 0-10 based on six criteria: how long credentials last (short-lived tokens are better), whether secrets are transmitted over the network, built-in replay attack protection, risk of storing plaintext secrets on the server, how easily credentials leak into logs or code, and how difficult it is to revoke compromised credentials. Complexity is scored 0-10 based on three factors: infrastructure requirements (from simple databases to full PKI systems), implementation difficulty (from adding HTTP headers to complex cryptographic protocols), and operational overhead (from basic monitoring to certificate lifecycle management).

What the Chart Shows

The visualization plots each method as a point where the X-axis represents complexity (left = simple, right = complex) and Y-axis represents security (bottom = weak, top = strong). Methods in the top-left quadrant offer the best value - high security with manageable complexity. The diagonal line represents perfect efficiency where security equals complexity; methods above this line give you more security per unit of complexity invested. This helps you quickly identify whether a method's complexity is justified by its security benefits and choose the option that best matches your risk tolerance and technical capabilities.