APort vs WorkOS Fine-Grained Authorization
WorkOS FGA is a strong B2B SaaS resource authorization layer. APort authorizes AI agent tool actions before execution.
WorkOS FGA extends RBAC with hierarchical, resource-scoped access control for B2B SaaS products. Its docs frame the core model around subjects, resources, privileges, assignments, and access checks.
APort is not a replacement for product authorization. It is the runtime authorization layer for agents that already have access to tools. Use WorkOS FGA to answer whether a user can access a project. Use APort to answer whether the agent may run this shell command, read this file, call this MCP tool, or send this message right now.
| Comparison point | OAP / APort | WorkOS FGA |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Pre-action authorization for AI agent tool calls. | Fine-grained authorization for B2B SaaS resources and organization memberships. |
| Question answered | Can this agent perform this action with these arguments? | Can this subject access this resource or which resources can this subject access? |
| Policy object | Passport capabilities, policy packs, limits, status, and action context. | Resource types, resources, roles, permissions, and assignments. |
| Runtime location | Agent framework hook or verify API before tools execute. | Application authorization API and role-aware sessions for SaaS product access. |
| Agent support | Agent passports are first-class and scoped to tool actions. | WorkOS docs say subjects are primarily organization memberships today, with other subject types including agents coming soon. |
| Audit record | Decision record with policy id, allow/deny, reasons, action context, and signed integrity metadata where available. | Application access checks and WorkOS authorization data. Audit shape depends on product integration. |
| Best together | Use APort for action-level agent enforcement. | Use WorkOS FGA for human and product-resource authorization in your SaaS app. |
Use WorkOS FGA when
- You need resource-scoped permissions for a B2B SaaS application
- You already use WorkOS AuthKit, SSO, Directory Sync, or RBAC
- Your authorization questions are about users, groups, resources, and hierarchy
Use OAP / APort when
- Your agent can execute shell commands, read files, call MCP tools, fetch web URLs, or write data
- You need fail-closed allow/deny at the framework hook before side effects
- You need per-action audit records tied to an AI agent passport
Why teams choose OAP / APort
Purpose-built for agent actions
APort evaluates the actual tool call and arguments. That is a different control point than user-to-resource access.
Works beside your app auth
Keep WorkOS or your existing IAM for humans. Add APort where AI agents execute tools.
Framework-aware enforcement
Claude Code, Cursor, OpenClaw, LangChain, CrewAI, and MCP integrations call the same authorization layer before dispatch.
Sources
Competitor descriptions use primary documentation where possible so the comparison stays falsifiable and current.
- WorkOS FGA documentationCore model, subjects, resources, privileges, access checks, and performance claims.
- Open Agent Passport specificationAgent passport and pre-action policy model.
- Before the Tool Call paperPre-action authorization and signed decision records.