Skip to content

Tesseral

Last verified 2026-05-15 · Reviewed by guptadeepak

b2b-saascloud-saasself-hostedtiered-mau

Editorial verdict

Tesseral is a 2024-vintage entrant in B2B-SaaS-OSS CIAM, with both managed cloud and self-hosted Apache 2.0 deployments. Smaller and younger than incumbents, but the pricing model and OSS option are competitive for early-stage B2B SaaS that wants the optionality. Worth shortlisting alongside Zitadel and SSOJet for B2B-only SaaS that values OSS self-host.

Last verified by @guptadeepak on 2026-05-15.

At a glance

Best for
B2B SaaS startups that want OSS self-host as an option without taking on Keycloak operational weight
Pricing
tiered-mau
Free tier
10,000 MAU
Deployment
cloud-saas, self-hosted
SOC 2 Type II
Yes
Passkeys
Native
Self-host
Yes
Open source
No

Funding & business

Funding model
Venture-backed
Total raised
$3.3M
Latest round
Seed · $3.3M · 2025
Years in business
2 yrs
Round led by
Y Combinator
Profitable
Not disclosed

Open-source B2B auth infrastructure; $3.3M seed at launch (2025).

Funding data from primary source. See also the CIAM investor landscape.

Strengths

  • B2B SaaS focus with both managed cloud and open-source self-hosted deployments from one product.
  • Modern Go-based architecture with idiomatic React/Next.js SDKs.
  • Apache 2.0 licensed self-hosted edition, strict OSS compliance.
  • Built B2B Organizations and tenant-aware login URLs into the core data model.

Limitations

  • Very young (2024), small customer base, limited battle-test coverage.
  • Compliance footprint is narrow, SOC 2 Type II only on the managed product.
  • B2C consumer features are minimal.
  • Smaller ecosystem than WorkOS or Frontegg.

Capability matrix

Every vendor scored on the same axes. See the methodology for criteria.

Authentication
Password authentication Yes
Social login Yes
Magic links Yes
SMS OTP No
Email OTP Yes
TOTP (authenticator app) Yes
Push MFA No
WebAuthn / passkeys Yes
Biometric Yes
Hardware security keys Yes
SAML SSO Yes
OIDC SSO Yes
OAuth 2.0 SSO Yes
Enterprise federation Partial
Passwordless-only flows Yes
Adaptive MFA No
Step-up auth Partial
Swipe table horizontally →
Authorization
RBAC Yes
ABAC No
ReBAC No
FGA engine No
API authorization Yes
Fine-grained permissions Partial
Swipe table horizontally →
User management
Self-service registration Yes
Progressive profiling No
Self-service account Yes
Bulk user import Yes
Admin user search Yes
Custom user metadata Yes
Organizations / tenants Yes
Multi-tenancy Yes
Swipe table horizontally →
Developer experience
REST API Yes
GraphQL API No
SDKsjs, node, react, next, go, python
CLI Yes
Terraform provider No
Local emulator Yes
Extension modelWebhooks + custom claims
Swipe table horizontally →
Security
Bot detection No
Breached password detection Yes
Brute-force protection Yes
Anomaly detection No
Log streams Partial
Audit logs Yes
GDPR data export Yes
PII minimization Partial
Post-quantum roadmap No
Swipe table horizontally →
Agentic identity
MCP support No
OAuth 2.1 Yes
Dynamic client registration No
Agent vs human token separation No
Web Bot Auth No
Swipe table horizontally →
Compliance
SOC 2 Type II Yes
ISO 27001 No
ISO 27018 No
HIPAA No
PCI DSS No
GDPR Yes
CCPA Yes
FedRAMP No
EU data residency Yes
Swipe table horizontally →
Consent & privacy
Consent management No
Preference center No
Purpose-specific consent No
Integrates with CMPsn/a
Swipe table horizontally →

Pricing

Estimated monthly cost (USD)
10,000 MAU$0/mo
100,000 MAU$290/mo
500,000 MAU$1,300/mo
1,000,000 MAU$2,500/mo
Swipe table horizontally →
  • Open-source self-hosted edition available
  • Managed Cloud priced per-MAU with B2B Organizations included
  • Pre-built UI components in Next.js + React SDKs

Estimates use the standard assumptions in our methodology. Always confirm with the vendor.

Best for

  • B2B SaaS startups that want OSS self-host as an option without taking on Keycloak operational weight
  • Teams comparing modern OSS B2B CIAM
  • Apps that may need to switch between managed and self-hosted later

Not for

  • B2C consumer apps
  • Workloads requiring HIPAA, FedRAMP, ISO 27001, or PCI DSS
  • Mid-large enterprise federation needs

FAQ

How does Tesseral compare to Zitadel?
Both are modern OSS B2B CIAM with managed and self-hosted options. Zitadel is more mature and has a larger feature surface; Tesseral is younger with tighter B2B-SaaS scope. For 2026 evaluations, Zitadel is the lower-risk pick; Tesseral is worth watching.
Is Tesseral fully open source?
Yes, Apache 2.0 self-hosted Community edition. Tesseral Cloud is the managed offering; both share the same codebase.
Should I pick Tesseral over WorkOS?
WorkOS is more mature and battle-tested. Tesseral's differentiator is the OSS self-host option WorkOS does not offer. For teams that want managed-only with maximum maturity, WorkOS; for OSS optionality, Tesseral.

Sources


What Tesseral is

Tesseral launched in 2024 as a B2B-SaaS-focused CIAM with both managed (Tesseral Cloud) and Apache 2.0 self-hosted Community editions sharing the same codebase. The thesis is similar to Zitadel's, modern OSS plus managed offering, but with tighter B2B-SaaS scope and Next.js / React-first DX.

Where Tesseral wins

Both deployment options from one product. Strict Apache 2.0 OSS licensing on the self-hosted edition. Modern Go-based architecture. Built B2B Organizations and tenant-aware login URLs into the core.

Where Tesseral hurts

Very young, 2024 founding means a small customer base and limited battle-test coverage compared to incumbents. Compliance footprint is narrow with SOC 2 Type II only on the managed product, no ISO 27001 / HIPAA / FedRAMP / PCI DSS attestations. B2C consumer features are minimal; the product is intentionally B2B-multi-tenant-shaped. For mid-large enterprise federation or for B2C consumer apps with serious progressive profiling and fraud needs, look elsewhere.

How Tesseral compares

The closest comparisons are Tesseral vs Zitadel, Tesseral vs WorkOS, and Tesseral vs SSOJet for the modern-B2B-CIAM call. For broader OSS without managed-cloud, Keycloak and Ory are the alternatives.

Editorial changelog (1 entry)
  1. Full profile review: capability matrix, TCO bands, and editorial verdict re-verified against current public sources.

Last verified by @guptadeepak on 2026-05-15.