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
Read these sources alongside the table and use-case tradeoffs. The comparison is APort's interpretation; each source describes its own system.
- 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.