Compare

Where EdSSA wins, where EdSSA doesn’t.

We don’t replace cloud-microservice authentication. We address what the vault model can’t reach. Switch the table to Competition to see where AWS, Microsoft Entra, Okta, and the rest map.

EdSSA Nano vs mTLS, OAuth 2.0/JWT, DPoP, SPIRE/SPIFFE, Vault dynamic secrets, PQ-hybrid TLS, SCMS (IEEE 1609.2), and Kerberos — scored across thirteen architectural dimensions.
	EdSSA Nano	mTLS	OAuth 2.0 / JWT	DPoP (RFC 9449)	SPIRE / SPIFFE	Vault dynamic secrets	PQ-hybrid TLS	SCMS (IEEE 1609.2)	Kerberos
No central authority in the hot path	●		○		○	○		○	○
No per-request central call	●	●	●	●		○	●	●
No PKI / CA infrastructure required	●	○		○	○	○	○	○	○
Survives multi-day disconnect	●		○	○	○	○			○
Tolerates RF-contested / jamming envelopes	●		○	○	○	○			○
Post-quantum credential security	●	○	○	○	○	○	●	○	○
Forward secrecy from key compromise	●	○	○				●
Sub-microsecond verification budget	●	○	○	○	○	○	○	○	○
Per-request audit emission, ~zero overhead	●	○				●	○	○
Sovereign-clean (no foreign-controlled binding)	●		○	○					●
Transport-agnostic	●	○	●			●	○
Standardised RFC / IEEE spec	○	●	●	●		○		●	●
Decade of production deployment	○	●	●			●	○	●	●

● Yes Partial○ No

The two rows we don’t yet score on — RFC standardisation and decade-of-production-deployment — are the rows time will fill in. Everything above the line is a structural consequence of the architecture, not a roadmap promise.

This information is to our best knowledge. Specifics evolve fast and product configurations vary — please verify against the vendor’s current docs for your deployment, and report errors to contact@edssa.io. We’ll correct them.

Want a deeper comparison for your stack?

We’ll walk through it on a call.

Talk to us →