I understand that you want to promote your solution and you have a disclaimer in the previous comment - and that's great. But if you keep insisting then you should IMHO at least provide some reasons on why your solution may be better than e.g. Keycloak and not just posting the name a couple times and see if it sticks.
Fair point. Here's what I'd say if someone was choosing between Keycloak and FusionAuth:
I believe that FusionAuth has a better developer experience. Everything is an API, the docs are regularly updated (though we can always do better). There's an easy way to set up developer environments to a known state (Kickstart) that I don't believe Keycloak has an analog for.
FusionAuth supports limited memory environments. We have folks running in 384MB of memory. From what I've read, Keycloak wants more resources, though Keycloak X is apparently a good alternative. I don't know if Keycloak X has feature parity.
Both options offer support (Keycloak via the Redhat SSO package), but you can view our pricing without talking to anyone. I wasn't able to find pricing for Redhat SSO (that's usually not a good sign, but maybe someone who has engaged with them can add more, I could be mistaken and it could be super affordable).
FusionAuth has a 100% free as in beer edition with unlimited enterprise or social connections, users, and tenants. (There are certain usage restrictions; you can't package FusionAuth and resell it without a paid license, for example.)
Keycloak has a large community and is 100% open source. Those are definitely strengths that I want to acknowledge.
It's always good to evaluate software as critical as auth (or payments or notifications, for that matter) with a POC simply because everyone's situation is a bit different and it does get embedded in your systems (source: I picked Stripe for a startup and evaluated moving off multiple times to save money but didn't end up doing so in part because of effort and opportunity cost).
