Skip to content
All articles
Protocols4 August 2025·4 min read

OIDC vs SAML: How a two-decade-old protocol still dominates identity federation

It is easy to read a specification and conclude the problem is solved.

Paycux engineering

It is easy to read a specification and conclude the problem is solved. It is harder to sit with the twenty implementations that each read the same paragraph differently and still call themselves compliant.

This piece walks through how we think about it at Paycux, what we have changed our minds about, and where the sharp edges are.

The rise of SAML

Consider the rise of saml. Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

The migration challenge

The migration challenge deserves its own treatment. Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

  • Validate signature, issuer, audience and expiry as four separate checks
  • Normalize provider attributes into one internal shape
  • Fail loudly when a peer stops meeting a documented assumption
  • Keep a fixture per provider so regressions surface in CI

OIDC vs. SAML: Architectural differences

OIDC vs. SAML: Architectural differences deserves its own treatment. Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

Normalization is the whole job. Two providers can be perfectly compliant and still disagree about what a group membership is, whether a logout is meaningful, and which attribute carries the email address.

Assertions vs JWTs

Assertions vs JWTs is where this gets concrete. Normalization is the whole job. Two providers can be perfectly compliant and still disagree about what a group membership is, whether a logout is meaningful, and which attribute carries the email address.

Normalization is the whole job. Two providers can be perfectly compliant and still disagree about what a group membership is, whether a logout is meaningful, and which attribute carries the email address.

Normalization is the whole job.

Multi-application federation vs app-centric tokens

That brings us to multi-application federation vs app-centric tokens. Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

Compliance and auditing

Consider compliance and auditing. Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

Federation ecosystem and trust models

Consider federation ecosystem and trust models. Version the assumption, not just the code. Write down what you expect from the peer, and make the failure loud when it stops being true, because the alternative is a connection that half works for six weeks.

Treat anything the other side sends as untrusted input until it has been through validation you wrote. Signature checks, issuer checks, audience checks and expiry checks are four separate decisions, and skipping any one of them is a real vulnerability rather than a theoretical one.

Where this leaves us

If there is one thing worth taking away, it is that the expensive decisions are the ones made implicitly. Making them on purpose costs an afternoon.

If you are working through the same problem and want to compare notes, the docs cover the mechanics and the console shows the behaviour on your own data.

Everything here, already built

Sign-in, enterprise SSO, directory provisioning, roles and an audit trail behind one API. Start with the quickstart and have a working sign-in this afternoon.

Start selling to enterprise customers

Create an account, point sign-in at Paycux, and get back to the part of the product that is actually yours.