Protocol
EdSSA vs the protocol stack you would compare it to.
EdSSA Nano against mTLS, OAuth/JWT, DPoP, SPIRE/SPIFFE, Vault, PQ-hybrid TLS, SCMS, and Kerberos — by architectural dimension and by commercial-product mapping.
Read the comparison →Hardware
EdSSA on $4.95 silicon vs the hardware that ships today.
ESP32-C6-WROOM-1 with EdSSA against FIDO2 keys, secure-element mTLS (ATECC608), Azure Sphere, rolling-code (Ultimate KeeLoq), and aPAKE/OPAQUE-IoT. Silicon cost, vault dependency, per-request uniqueness, frequency, and shipping maturity.
Read the comparison →Foundational
Five properties of a foundational protocol — honestly scored.
Solves a problem nothing else solves at scale, substrate-like when working, survives paradigm shifts, has an adoption-standards story, has multiple independent implementations. EdSSA Nano scored against the same eight competitors.
Read the comparison →Why a comparison page at all.
A new shape of authentication is hard to grasp in the abstract. The easiest path into a new idea is by way of something the reader already knows — so the most useful thing this site can do, for a careful reader landing for the first time, is map EdSSA against the things it sits next to.
Each comparison is honest in both directions. EdSSA wins on the rows it was designed to win. The maturity rows — shipping volume, off-the-shelf availability, independent review — answer “not yet” by design. We will not pretend a Phase-0 protocol ships in millions; we will not pretend the architectural argument lands without a multi-year standards arc behind it.
The comparison is the introduction. The pages below are the introductions.