Skip to content

Why choose RBACX

Quick Comparison (at a glance)

Criterion RBACX (Python) Casbin (Python) Oso (Polar + Python SDK) Django Guardian django-rules Flask-RBAC
Policy definition JSON/YAML/Python dicts (declarative data + operators; includes ReBAC rel condition) Separate model.conf + policy storage (CSV/DB/etc.) Separate .polar files; declarative DSL (Polar) No DSL; permissions stored in DB; backend checks No DSL; rules/predicates registered in Python In-code decorators/config registering role rules
Framework integration Adapters for FastAPI, Flask, Django/DRF, Starlette/Litestar (middleware/deps/decorators) Library calls (enforcer.enforce(...)); framework glue typically user-built Enforce via authorize() in app code; ORM filtering helpers Django-only; integrates with user.has_perm and Django Admin Django-only backend; integrates with has_perm & DRF helpers Flask-only; extension + decorators
Query-time filtering Manual in app/repo layer Manual or custom helpers Helpers like authorized_query / authorized_resources for ORMs ORM patterns (filter by permissions) Manual (apply predicates or integrate with queryset logic) N/A (endpoint/role checks)
ReBAC (relationship checks) Optional RelationshipChecker; optional connectors to external relationship stores (e.g., SpiceDB, OpenFGA) Model via roles/domains or ABAC functions; no first-class relationship graph backend in core usage docs Can model relationships in Polar and filter data; no external graph backend required Object permissions model (per-object grants) Predicate-based checks; no relationship graph Simple role checks; no relationship graph
Language scope Python Multi-language ecosystem Libraries for multiple languages Python/Django Python/Django Python/Flask

Notes for the table: Casbin uses a model.conf + policy storage (commonly CSV) architecture; Oso policies are written in the Polar language; Guardian provides Django object permissions; django-rules is predicate-based; Flask-RBAC adds RBAC to Flask.

Advantages of RBACX

RBACX brings together role-based, attribute-based, and relationship-based access control (ReBAC). You can start with simple role checks and add attribute- or relationship-based conditions later—without changing libraries or architecture. Many alternatives focus either on roles (e.g., Flask-RBAC, Casbin in its simplest use) or a dedicated DSL (e.g., Oso), whereas RBACX supports RBAC + ABAC + ReBAC in one engine. ReBAC can leverage external relationship stores such as SpiceDB or OpenFGA when configured.

  • Straightforward policy format Policies are JSON/YAML (or Python dicts). Unlike Casbin (separate model + data) or Oso (a dedicated language), RBACX uses familiar configuration formats that non-programmers can review. The condition DSL is compact but expressive for common business rules. Example:
{"==": [ {"attr": "resource.owner"}, {"attr": "subject.id"} ]}

makes the “owner” check explicit. Polar’s equivalent (resource.owner == user) is concise but requires learning a new DSL.

  • Clean, extensible codebase RBACX is modular and easy to customize. If you want to store policies in PostgreSQL, implement a PostgresPolicySource and plug it into Guard—no need to fork the library. Casbin is also extensible but has a steeper model/policy abstraction; Oso’s engine centers around a DSL rather than pluggable ports.

  • Adapters for multiple frameworks Out of the box, RBACX provides adapters for FastAPI/Starlette, Flask, Django, and Litestar. This shortens integration time and enables the same authorization model across services built with different frameworks. In contrast, some alternatives are tied to one framework (Guardian → Django, Flask-RBAC → Flask) or require custom glue (Casbin, Oso).

  • Hot policy reload RBACX can watch file/HTTP/S3 sources and apply policy updates automatically using ETag checks. Guardian, rules, and Flask-RBAC do not provide this out of the box; Casbin supports policy adapters and watchers, and Oso typically reloads programmatically.

  • Explainability, obligations, and ReBAC RBACX decisions expose not only Permit/Deny but also why (e.g., reason, rule_id) and can include obligations (e.g., require MFA). With ReBAC enabled, the engine can consult a relationship store (e.g., SpiceDB/OpenFGA) through a RelationshipChecker port.

  • Lightweight with minimal dependencies RBACX keeps the dependency footprint small (e.g., JSON Schema for validation), simplifying installation and reducing exposure to third-party vulnerabilities.

  • Optional decision cache to reduce latency on repeat checks, with safe invalidation on policy change.

Verdict

RBACX delivers RBAC + ABAC + ReBAC with a declarative JSON policy model, secure defaults, combining algorithms, hot reload, explainable decisions, and ready-to-use adapters for major Python web frameworks. It’s a pragmatic choice for teams that want fine-grained, auditable authorization without adopting a new policy language. For systems that store permissions as relationships (Google Zanzibar–style), RBACX can delegate checks to proven backends like SpiceDB or OpenFGA.

Disclaimer: This page reflects the library author’s perspective. For projects that require 100% reliability proven by years of production use, the choice may lean toward more mature and widely adopted solutions.