I'd suggest preparing a comparison table on the home page, at least against open source competitors, to help prospects decide. You emphasize completeness (authz + authn), and simplicity here:
The dominant player in this space is Auth0, who appeals to enterprises but lags behind in developer-friendliness and has strong vendor lock-in. A newer one is Clerk, which markets directly to devs, but is still entirely proprietary. Open-source solutions like Supabase Auth or Auth.js/NextAuth are only authN, and don't provide the rest of the toolchain.
Your pricing seems multi-tenant friendly. What other differentiating factors can you think of?
Appreciate the feedback! We have the following in our GitHub README, which we should probably copy to our frontpage:
> # How is this different from X?
>
> Ask yourself about X:
>
> - Is X open-source?
>
> - Is X developer-friendly, well-documented, and lets you get started in minutes?
>
> - Besides authentication, does X also do authorization and user management (see feature list below)?
>
> If you answered "no" to any of these questions, then that's how Stack Auth is different from X.
If you want to be developer friendly, create examples for as many languages as you can, and include them in the documentation, and as GitHub repos. Don't say "it's REST, DIY!"
Noted, thanks. We're focussing on Next.js frontends right now — which is fairly well-documented — I hope to get some Python & Golang examples in there by the end of the week.
