Warrant
by Warrant · Decommissioned authorisation service, now WorkOS FGA
BenchRank score
Screenshots of Warrant
Homepage
Overview
Warrant was a fine-grained authorisation service. It has been decommissioned and is now WorkOS FGA; its own pages direct all API, SDK and documentation use to WorkOS and list per-language replacements for the warrant-go, warrant-node, warrant-php, warrant-python and warrant-ruby SDKs.
- Best for
- Nobody new — existing Warrant users who need to migrate to WorkOS FGA.
- Pricing
- The captured text shows no pricing information at all; the product is end of life.
Strengths and trade-offs
Strengths
- Successor product and docs are named explicitly
- Per-SDK migration mapping given for Go, Node, PHP, Python, Ruby
- Publishes an llms.txt that redirects coding agents
Trade-offs
- End of life and decommissioned; not available to adopt
- SDKs are unmaintained and get no updates or security patches
- Docs and API now point at WorkOS FGA, not Warrant
- Using it requires a migration to another vendor's platform
Pricing
Published plans and prices from Warrant’s own pricing page.
How this score is made up
Each dimension is scored out of 100 and combined into the headline score using fixed weights.
MCP support
Whether an agent can drive the product through the Model Context Protocol, and how much setup that takes.
API quality
Public API surface: machine-readable spec, official SDKs, documented auth, errors, rate limits and versioning.
Documentation
Publicly reachable docs — coverage, freshness, code samples and machine readability.
Agent friendliness
How readable the site is to an automated client: llms.txt, structured data, server-rendered content, crawler access.
Pricing transparency
Whether real prices are published, self-serve signup exists, and usage costs are knowable without a sales call.
Changelog
A public, dated record of what shipped and when — the clearest signal that a product is still alive.
Marketing site structure
Whether the site answers a buyer's questions: clear positioning, the pages that matter, and accessibility.
Operational trust
Status page and incident history, security disclosure, compliance and data-processing documentation.
Measured, but not part of the score
Useful to know, but not a mark for or against the product — so these do not affect the ranking.
Openness
Source availability, self-hosting, data export and open standards. Scored and shown, but not part of the composite — paid SaaS is not worse for being paid SaaS.
This doesn’t look right — report a problem with Warrant’s score
Where this comes from
The Warrant pages BenchRank reads when it scores the product — its documentation, release notes, status and security pages, and its repository where there is one.
Alternatives in Identity & Access Management
Ranked 1
77 — BenchRank score out of 100Ory
Ory · API-first identity and access management, self-hosted or managed
Best for: Engineering teams wanting API-first identity and access management they can self-host or buy as SaaS
Ranked 2
73.9 — BenchRank score out of 100Logto
Logto · Open-source auth infrastructure with SSO, RBAC and multi-tenancy
Best for: Developers adding auth, enterprise SSO and multi-tenancy to SaaS or AI apps without building it
Ranked 3
70.9 — BenchRank score out of 100Hexclave
Hexclave · Open-source auth, payments, email and analytics building blocks
Best for: Startups wanting auth, payments, emails and analytics as one open-source, self-hostable platform.
Is this your product?
Claim Warrant to manage its profile. Claiming lets you suggest edits to the descriptive fields — it never changes scores or rankings.