SaaS Framework Comparison 2025 CODITECT Production Stack Analysis
SaaS Framework Comparison 2025 - CODITECT Production Stack Analysis
Date: November 22, 2025 Purpose: Comprehensive analysis of framework options for CODITECT multi-tenant SaaS architecture Decision Criteria: Production-ready, standard solutions, developer experience, 2025 best practices
Table of Contents
- Executive Summary
- Full-Stack Framework Comparison
- Multi-Tenant Architecture Comparison
- Authentication Solution Comparison
- Payment Gateway Comparison
- Final Recommendations
Executive Summary
⚠️ UPDATED FOR 1M+ TENANT SCALE (Hyper-Scale Multi-Tenancy)
User Requirement: Future-proof architecture that scales to 1M+ tenant organizations (not just users) without replacement.
Recommended Stack for CODITECT (1M+ Tenant Scale)
| Component | Recommended Solution | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Full-Stack Framework | Django 5.x OR FastAPI | Django for batteries-included, FastAPI for raw performance (both proven at scale) |
| Multi-Tenancy | django-multitenant + Citus | Shared-table model with distributed PostgreSQL, scales to billions of rows |
| Database | Citus (Distributed PostgreSQL) | Horizontal sharding, proven at 1M+ tenant scale (CitusData examples) |
| Authentication | Ory Hydra + Authlib | Distributed OAuth2 server (Hydra) for scale, Authlib for client integration |
| Payments | Stripe Billing API | Developer-first, handles millions of subscriptions, industry standard |
| Caching | Redis Cluster | Distributed caching, tenant quota checks at scale |
| Architecture | Microservices | Auth, Billing, Core API as separate services for independent scaling |
Critical Insights for 1M+ Tenant Scale
- ❌ django-tenants (schema-per-tenant) WILL NOT WORK - PostgreSQL practical limit ~10K-50K schemas, not 1M
- ✅ django-multitenant + Citus is the ONLY proven Django solution for 1M+ tenants
- ✅ Microservices architecture required - monolith cannot scale to 1M+ tenants efficiently
- ✅ Distributed systems everywhere - Citus (DB), Redis Cluster (cache), Ory Hydra (auth)
- 💰 Infrastructure cost at 1M tenants: $100K-500K+/month - this is hyper-scale SaaS territory
1. Full-Stack Framework Comparison
Django vs FastAPI vs Flask for Multi-Tenant SaaS
| Criteria | Django 5.x ⭐ | FastAPI | Flask |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance (RPS) | ~1,000 RPS (sync) 1,500+ RPS (async mode) | 3,000+ RPS (async-native) | ~800 RPS (sync WSGI) |
| Time to Productivity | 2-4 weeks (steep learning curve) | 1-2 weeks (moderate) | 1 week (easy) |
| Multi-Tenancy Support | django-tenants (production-proven) | Custom implementation needed | Custom implementation needed |
| Built-in Features | ORM, migrations, admin, auth, forms | Type validation, auto docs | Minimal (maximalist approach) |
| SaaS-Specific Tooling | Django REST Framework, Celery integration, django-tenants | Growing ecosystem, manual integration | Manual integration for everything |
| Admin Interface | Built-in Django Admin (huge for support) | Manual build required | Manual build required |
| Database Support | PostgreSQL, MySQL (excellent ORM) | SQLAlchemy (manual setup) | SQLAlchemy (manual setup) |
| Scale Threshold | Horizontal scaling needed at ~5K users | Single instance handles 10K+ users | Horizontal scaling needed early |
| Developer Experience | High-level abstractions, conventions | Type hints, async patterns | Maximum flexibility, DIY |
| Async Support | Added in Django 3.1+, improving | Native async-first | Evolving (ASGI) |
| Documentation | Extensive, 15+ years mature | Excellent, modern | Good but less comprehensive |
| Deployment Complexity | Moderate (WSGI/ASGI, static files) | Simple (single binary, fast startup) | Simple (WSGI) |
| Best For | Full-stack SaaS with relational DB | API-first microservices, real-time | Small services, prototypes, MVPs |
| Ecosystem Maturity | Very mature (Instagram, Spotify, YouTube) | Growing rapidly (2018+) | Mature (2010+) |
| Learning Resources | Abundant (15+ years community) | Excellent (modern tutorials) | Abundant |
| Production Examples | Instagram (500M+ users), Spotify, YouTube | ML model serving, data pipelines | Pinterest (early), small-medium apps |
Performance Context from 2025 Research
Critical Quote from FastAPI vs Django comparison
"For the vast majority of projects, performance isn't a great metric to make this decision off of as it's difficult to get to the scale needed to see differences, and you can scale horizontally; large companies have been built off all three frameworks, so developer experience is way more important."
Real-World SaaS Performance (2025 data)
- FastAPI: 50,000+ API calls/hour at 10,000 active users on single instance
- Django: Required horizontal scaling at ~5,000 users but handled Instagram's 500M+ users with proper architecture
The Django Trade-off
"Django offers the ORM, migrations, admin interface, and Django REST Framework, which some developers gladly trade extra performance for. The Django admin panel proved invaluable for customer support and data management."
2. Multi-Tenant Architecture Comparison
django-tenants vs Alternatives
| Criteria | django-tenants ⭐ | django-multitenant (CitusData) | Custom Schema Solution | Separate Databases |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolation Model | Schema-per-tenant (PostgreSQL schemas) | Shared tables with tenant_id | Custom schema management | Database-per-tenant |
| Data Isolation | Strong (PostgreSQL schema boundaries) | Medium (application-level filtering) | Strong (if implemented correctly) | Strongest (separate DBs) |
| Complexity | Low (package handles routing) | Low (foreign key filtering) | High (manual implementation) | Very High (DB provisioning) |
| Scalability | Excellent (thousands of tenants) | Excellent (Citus distributed) | Depends on implementation | Limited (DB connection limits) |
| Tenant Routing | Automatic (via subdomain) | Automatic (via tenant_id context) | Manual implementation | Manual DB selection |
| Schema Evolution | Django migrations work normally | Django migrations work normally | Complex migration management | Must migrate ALL databases |
| Resource Efficiency | High (shared DB connection pool) | High (single DB) | High (single DB) | Low (one DB per tenant) |
| Regulatory Compliance | Good (schema isolation) | Medium (shared tables) | Good (depends on implementation) | Excellent (physical separation) |
| Backup/Restore | Easy (single DB, per-schema options) | Easy (single DB, filter by tenant_id) | Easy (single DB) | Complex (many DBs) |
| Cost | Low (single PostgreSQL instance) | Low (single DB) | Low (single DB) | High (many DB instances) |
| Code Changes Required | Minimal (add to INSTALLED_APPS) | Foreign key on every model | Significant refactoring | Significant refactoring |
| Production Maturity | Battle-tested (2015+, wide adoption) | Growing (CitusData backing) | N/A (custom) | Mature but overkill |
| Best For | Most SaaS applications (10-10,000 tenants) | Very large scale (10,000+ tenants) | Avoid - reinventing wheel | High-compliance (healthcare, finance) |
2025 Best Practice Consensus
Quote from TestDriven.io (2025)
"The semi-isolated approach using packages like django-tenants is often the best bet, striking a balance between isolated and shared approaches... perfect for mid-sized to large SaaS projects."
Migration Path
"django-tenants allows transforming single-tenant projects into multi-tenant without changing much code."
Industry Standard
"Recent 2025 articles continue recommending django-tenants for most production SaaS applications, with django-multitenant as a viable alternative for shared-table architectures."
3. Authentication Solution Comparison
Authlib vs Ory Hydra vs Keycloak
| Criteria | Authlib ⭐ | Ory Hydra | Keycloak |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Python library (embeds in app) | Standalone OAuth2/OIDC server (Go) | Full IAM platform (Java) |
| Deployment | Part of Django app | Separate service (Docker/K8s) | Separate service (Docker/K8s) |
| User Management | Your Django User model | Requires external identity provider | Built-in user management |
| OAuth2/OIDC Support | Full (client + server) | OpenID Certified™ server only | Full (client + server) |
| Complexity | Low (pip install authlib) | Medium (separate service + login app) | High (monolithic, many features) |
| Performance | Native Python (same process) | High (Go, low latency) | Medium (Java, more resources) |
| Integration with Django | Seamless (Django views/models) | API integration required | API integration required |
| Social Login | Built-in (Google, GitHub, etc.) | Requires implementation in login app | Built-in |
| MFA/2FA | Implement with django-otp | Implement in login app | Built-in |
| Admin UI | Django Admin | None (headless) | Full admin UI |
| Token Support | JWT, JWS, JWE | JWT | JWT, SAML |
| Resource Usage | Minimal (library overhead) | Low (Go efficiency) | High (Java, memory-intensive) |
| Learning Curve | Moderate (OAuth2 concepts) | Steep (understand headless pattern) | Very Steep (many features) |
| Documentation | Excellent (Python-focused) | Good (developer-oriented) | Extensive (enterprise-focused) |
| Production Examples | Many FastAPI/Django SaaS apps | OpenAI (OAuth2 provider) | Enterprise IAM, large orgs |
| Best For | Most SaaS apps (embedded auth) | High-scale OAuth2 provider | Enterprise SSO, complex IAM |
| Maintenance | App dependency (update with pip) | Separate service lifecycle | Separate service lifecycle |
| Cost (infrastructure) | $0 (runs in Django) | ~$50-100/month (server instance) | ~$100-200/month (higher resources) |
When to Choose Each Solution
Choose Authlib if
- Building a SaaS application with Django
- Want OAuth2/OIDC embedded in your application
- Need social login (Google, GitHub, etc.)
- Prefer Python-native solution
- Want minimal operational overhead
Choose Ory Hydra if
- Need to be an OAuth2 provider for other applications
- Require OpenID Certified™ compliance
- Have existing user management system
- Need ultra-high performance OAuth2 server
Choose Keycloak if
- Enterprise SSO requirements
- Need complete IAM with built-in user management
- SAML support required
- Large organization with dedicated IAM team
2025 Industry Insight
Quote from LibHunt comparison
"Authlib provides low-level building blocks for both OAuth/OIDC clients and servers, described as 'Spring Security for Python'. It backs many FastAPI tutorials and is pure-Python, installing without C dependencies."
On Ory Hydra
"Ory Hydra is not an identity provider (user sign up, user login, password reset flow), but connects to your existing identity provider through a login and consent app... trusted by OpenAI and many others for scale and security."
On Keycloak
"Keycloak is a monolithic solution that offers a wide range of features out-of-the-box, such as social login, single sign-on, and multi-factor authentication... much heavier than Hydra."
4. Payment Gateway Comparison
Stripe vs Paddle vs Chargebee
| Criteria | Stripe Billing ⭐ | Paddle | Chargebee |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business Model | Payment processor + billing | Merchant of Record (MoR) | Subscription management platform |
| Pricing | 0.7% + $0.05/invoice OR $620/month flat | 5% + $0.50/transaction (all-inclusive) | Free up to $250K, then 0.75%/transaction OR $599/month + processor fees |
| Payment Processing | Built-in (Stripe) | Built-in (Paddle = MoR) | Requires separate gateway (e.g., Stripe) |
| Tax/VAT Handling | Manual (you're merchant of record) | Automatic (Paddle handles global tax) | Manual (requires tax software) |
| Legal Compliance | You handle (terms, GDPR, PCI) | Paddle handles (MoR takes liability) | You handle |
| Developer Experience | Excellent (best documentation, APIs) | Good (simplified, less flexible) | Good (comprehensive APIs) |
| Time to Integration | Few hours (well-documented) | 1-2 days (simpler model) | 2-3 days (more configuration) |
| Customization | Maximum (composable APIs) | Limited (MoR constraints) | High (many configuration options) |
| Subscription Features | Excellent (metered, tiered, hybrid) | Good (standard plans) | Excellent (advanced billing models) |
| Invoice Management | Built-in | Built-in | Advanced (customizable templates) |
| Analytics/Reporting | Good (Stripe Dashboard) | Good (Paddle Dashboard) | Excellent (dedicated analytics) |
| Global Payments | 135+ currencies | 200+ countries, auto-currency | 100+ currencies |
| Fraud Prevention | Stripe Radar (ML-powered) | Built-in (Paddle handles) | Requires integration |
| Recurring Billing | Native (subscriptions core feature) | Native | Native (subscription-focused) |
| Usage-Based Billing | Excellent (metering, reporting) | Limited | Excellent (metered billing core) |
| Dunning Management | Built-in Smart Retries | Built-in | Advanced (customizable) |
| Best For | Developer-led SaaS (API-first) | Startups (zero tax hassle) | Complex billing (enterprise SaaS) |
| Notable Users | Shopify, Slack, Lyft, Zoom | Notion, Setapp, PandaDoc | Box, Freshworks, Study.com |
Real-World Developer Feedback (2025)
On Stripe
"Stripe is known for being super easy to use and easy to integrate, with a system you can get up and running in just a few minutes... perfectly designed for programmers and developers at lean startups."
Key Limitation
"Growing SaaS companies are likely to run into struggles while using Stripe, particularly around sales tax and VAT."
On Paddle
"Paddle revolutionizes billing by acting as your merchant of record, handling all the complexities—tax compliance, payment processing and fraud prevention."
Trade-off
"Paddle's all-in-one model is great for simplicity but may limit flexibility."
On Chargebee
"Chargebee offers one API layer to handle almost all of your SaaS billing needs... lots of options to help customize your customers' plans."
Important Note
"Though Chargebee is a very comprehensive product, you'll still need a payment gateway to directly process payments and a merchant account (for which you could integrate with Stripe)."
Cost Comparison (Example: $10K MRR)
| Gateway | Monthly Cost | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Stripe | $70 (0.7% × $10K) | Plus payment processing (~2.9% + $0.30) |
| Paddle | $500 (5% × $10K) | All-inclusive (no processor fees) |
| Chargebee | $599 (Performance plan) | Plus Stripe fees (~2.9% + $0.30) |
At $100K MRR
| Gateway | Monthly Cost | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Stripe | $700 (0.7% × $100K) | Plus ~$3K payment processing |
| Paddle | $5,000 (5% × $100K) | All-inclusive |
| Chargebee | $599 + Stripe fees (~$3K) | = ~$3,600 total |
Verdict: Stripe wins on cost at scale, Paddle wins on simplicity for startups, Chargebee wins for complex subscription models.
5. Final Recommendations
⚠️ CRITICAL: Two Different Architectures Based on Scale
OPTION A: Standard Scale (Up to 10,000 Tenants)
Use this if you expect <10K tenant organizations
| Component | Recommended Solution | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Backend Framework | Django 5.x | Admin panel, mature ecosystem, proven at scale |
| Multi-Tenancy | django-tenants | Schema-based isolation, minimal code changes |
| Database | PostgreSQL 16+ | Schema support, excellent Django ORM |
| Authentication | Authlib | Python-native, embeds in Django |
| Payments | Stripe Billing | Best developer experience |
| Caching | Redis 7+ | Single instance sufficient |
| Architecture | Monolith | Simpler deployment, faster development |
OPTION B: Hyper-Scale (1M+ Tenants) ⭐ REQUIRED FOR CODITECT
Use this for 1M+ tenant organizations (future-proof architecture)
| Component | Recommended Solution | Alternative | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Backend Framework | Django 5.x OR FastAPI | Both proven | Django for admin panel, FastAPI for raw performance |
| Multi-Tenancy | django-multitenant + Citus | N/A | ONLY solution proven at 1M+ tenants |
| Database | Citus (Distributed PostgreSQL) | Amazon Aurora (but less control) | Horizontal sharding, scales to billions of rows |
| Authentication | Ory Hydra (OAuth2 server) + Authlib (client) | Keycloak | Distributed auth, proven at OpenAI scale |
| Payments | Stripe Billing | Paddle | Handles millions of subscriptions |
| Caching | Redis Cluster (3-6 nodes) | N/A | Distributed caching for tenant quota checks |
| Task Queue | Celery + RabbitMQ Cluster | N/A | Distributed task processing |
| API Gateway | Kong OR Traefik | N/A | Rate limiting, tenant routing at edge |
| Architecture | Microservices | N/A | Auth, Billing, Core API as separate services |
| Orchestration | Kubernetes (GKE/EKS) | N/A | Container orchestration, auto-scaling |
| Observability | Prometheus + Grafana + Jaeger | N/A | Critical at this scale |
Why OPTION B is Required
- ✅ Citus proven at 1M+ tenants - CitusData (Microsoft) has reference architectures for this exact scale
- ✅ Shared-table model scales - Citus shards data across nodes, no schema-per-tenant limits
- ✅ Microservices enable independent scaling - auth service can scale separately from core API
- ✅ No architectural rewrite needed - designed for 1M+ from day one
Why Django Over FastAPI for CODITECT?
Despite FastAPI's Performance Advantage, Django Wins Because
-
Admin Panel = Customer Support Efficiency
- Built-in Django Admin saves 100+ hours of development
- Critical for managing users, subscriptions, support issues
- FastAPI requires building from scratch
-
Multi-Tenancy Ecosystem
django-tenantsis production-proven (2015+)- FastAPI requires custom schema-based routing
- Would need to reinvent django-tenants in FastAPI
-
Developer Velocity > Raw Speed
- CODITECT needs features shipped faster than milliseconds saved
- Django's batteries-included approach accelerates development
- Performance can scale horizontally when needed
-
Ecosystem Maturity
- Django REST Framework for APIs
- django-cors-headers, django-filter, django-extensions
- FastAPI ecosystem growing but less mature for full SaaS
-
Real-World Scale Evidence
- Instagram: 500M+ users on Django
- Spotify, YouTube, Disqus: all Django
- Proven at scale with proper architecture
When to Choose FastAPI Instead
- Pure API service (no admin/forms needed)
- Real-time requirements (WebSockets, async-heavy)
- Microservices architecture (not monolith)
- ML model serving (data science focus)
For CODITECT: Django's full-stack capabilities and admin interface are more valuable than FastAPI's raw performance.
Why django-tenants Over Alternatives?
Schema-based isolation hits the sweet spot
- Strong Data Isolation - PostgreSQL schema boundaries prevent cross-tenant data leaks
- Low Complexity - Add to INSTALLED_APPS, minimal code changes
- Production-Ready - Battle-tested since 2015, wide adoption
- Scalability - Handles 10-10,000 tenants easily
- Django-Native - Migrations work normally, no custom DB layer
Comparison
- vs Separate Databases: Too complex, high operational overhead
- vs Shared Tables (django-multitenant): Weaker isolation, requires tenant_id on every model
- vs Custom Solution: Reinventing the wheel, months of development
For CODITECT: django-tenants provides optimal balance for mid-to-large SaaS.
Why Authlib Over Ory Hydra/Keycloak?
Authlib wins for embedded SaaS authentication
- Python-Native - No separate service to deploy/maintain
- Simpler Architecture - Runs in Django process, no microservice complexity
- Django Integration - Works with Django User model, admin, views
- Lower Cost - $0 infrastructure (vs $50-200/month for separate service)
- Sufficient Features - OAuth2, OIDC, social login, JWT - all SaaS needs covered
When Others Win
- Ory Hydra: When you ARE an OAuth2 provider for third parties (like OpenAI)
- Keycloak: Enterprise SSO, SAML, complex IAM across many apps
For CODITECT: Authlib provides all needed functionality with minimal operational overhead.
Why Stripe Over Paddle/Chargebee?
Stripe Billing wins for developer-led SaaS
- Best Developer Experience - "Get up and running in just a few minutes"
- Composable APIs - Build exactly what you need
- Industry Standard - Slack, Zoom, Shopify trust Stripe
- Cost-Effective at Scale - 0.7% beats Paddle's 5% as you grow
- Documentation - Best in class, extensive examples
Trade-offs Accepted
- Manual Tax Handling - Accept complexity OR use Stripe Tax add-on
- You're Merchant of Record - Accept legal responsibility
When Alternatives Win
- Paddle: Startup with zero tax/legal resources (pay 5% for simplicity)
- Chargebee: Very complex subscription models (advanced dunning, custom workflows)
For CODITECT: Stripe's developer experience and scalability outweigh tax complexity.
Implementation Roadmap
Phase 1: Foundation (Week 1-2)
Django + django-tenants Setup
pip install django==5.0 django-tenants psycopg2-binary
# settings.py
INSTALLED_APPS = [
'django_tenants', # Must be first
'django.contrib.auth',
# ... rest of apps
]
DATABASE_ROUTERS = ('django_tenants.routers.TenantSyncRouter',)
TENANT_MODEL = "customers.Client"
TENANT_DOMAIN_MODEL = "customers.Domain"
PostgreSQL Setup
CREATE DATABASE coditect_production;
CREATE USER coditect_user WITH PASSWORD 'secure_password';
GRANT ALL PRIVILEGES ON DATABASE coditect_production TO coditect_user;
Phase 2: Authentication (Week 3)
Authlib Integration
pip install authlib django-cors-headers
# settings.py
INSTALLED_APPS += ['corsheaders']
MIDDLEWARE = ['corsheaders.middleware.CorsMiddleware', ...]
# OAuth2 configuration
AUTHLIB_OAUTH_CLIENTS = {
'google': {
'client_id': env('GOOGLE_CLIENT_ID'),
'client_secret': env('GOOGLE_CLIENT_SECRET'),
}
}
Phase 3: Payments (Week 4)
Stripe Integration
pip install stripe django-stripe-payments
# settings.py
STRIPE_PUBLIC_KEY = env('STRIPE_PUBLIC_KEY')
STRIPE_SECRET_KEY = env('STRIPE_SECRET_KEY')
STRIPE_WEBHOOK_SECRET = env('STRIPE_WEBHOOK_SECRET')
Phase 4: Production Hardening (Week 5-6)
- Redis caching for tenant routing
- Celery for background tasks
- Prometheus + Grafana monitoring
- Load testing with Locust
- Security audit (OWASP)
- CI/CD pipeline (GitHub Actions)
Cost Analysis
Infrastructure Costs (Monthly)
| Component | Provider | Cost | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application Servers | Google Cloud Run | $50-150 | Auto-scaling, pay-per-use |
| PostgreSQL | Cloud SQL (HA) | $100-200 | Multi-tenant database |
| Redis | Memorystore | $50 | Caching + Celery |
| Stripe | Transaction fees | 2.9% + $0.30 | Standard payment processing |
| Stripe Billing | Subscription fees | 0.7% of volume | Recurring billing |
| Monitoring | Google Cloud Monitoring | $20-50 | Logs, metrics, traces |
| CDN | Cloudflare | $0-20 | Static assets, DDoS protection |
| Total (MVP) | - | $220-470/month | Scales with usage |
Development Costs (One-Time)
| Phase | Effort | Cost (at $150/hr) | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Django + Multi-Tenancy Setup | 40 hours | $6,000 | 1 week |
| Authlib Integration | 24 hours | $3,600 | 3 days |
| Stripe Integration | 32 hours | $4,800 | 4 days |
| Admin Panel Customization | 40 hours | $6,000 | 1 week |
| Testing + QA | 24 hours | $3,600 | 3 days |
| Total | 160 hours | $24,000 | 4 weeks |
ROI: Using standard solutions (Django + django-tenants + Authlib + Stripe) saves ~$50,000+ vs building custom multi-tenant + auth + billing systems.
Risk Analysis
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Django performance bottleneck | Medium | Medium | Horizontal scaling, caching, DB optimization |
| Stripe tax compliance complexity | High | Medium | Use Stripe Tax add-on ($0.50/transaction) OR hire tax specialist |
| Schema-based tenancy limits | Low | Low | django-tenants handles 10,000+ tenants before issues |
| Authlib security vulnerability | Low | High | Regular updates, security audits, follow OAuth2 best practices |
| Vendor lock-in (Stripe) | Medium | Medium | Abstract payment logic, keep migration path to Paddle/Chargebee |
Sources
Full-Stack Framework Comparison
- FastAPI vs Django vs Flask for SaaS: The 2025 Performance Showdown
- Why I still choose Django over Flask or FastAPI (Loopwerk)
- FastAPI vs Django vs Flask: The Framework Showdown for 2025 (DEV)
- FastAPI vs Flask vs Django in 2025 (PropelAuth)
- Flask vs FastAPI vs Django: Which Framework to Choose in 2025?
Multi-Tenant Architecture Comparison
- Building a Multi-tenant App with Django (TestDriven.io)
- Mastering Multi-Tenant Architectures in Django (Simform Engineering)
- Is Django Multi-Tenant Worth It? A Developer's Tale
- django-tenants official documentation
- Django SaaS Architecture: Single-Tenant vs Multi-Tenant (Volito)
Authentication Solution Comparison
- Top 10 full-stack, self-hosted IAM platforms (Keycloak & peers)
- Ory Hydra GitHub Repository
- Keycloak vs ORY Hydra (StackShare)
- Open source auth providers in 2025 (Tesseral Guides)
- Comparisons of identity management solutions
Payment Gateway Comparison
- Best SaaS Billing Platforms: Stripe vs Paddle vs Chargebee
- A Detailed Comparison of Stripe vs. Paddle vs. FastSpring
- 24 Subscription Billing Platforms Compared
- Chargebee vs Paddle: Which recurring payment platform is best?
- Would you use Paddle, Chargebee, Chargify, or just Stripe? (Indie Hackers)
Last Updated: November 22, 2025 Next Review: January 2026 (after Django 5.1 LTS release) Owner: CODITECT Core Team Status: ✅ Recommendation Approved - Ready for Implementation