JWT vs PASETO: A Comprehensive Comparison
Source: Dev.to
Overview
| Feature | JWT (JSON Web Token) | PASETO (Platform‑Agnostic Security Token) |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | An open standard (RFC 7519) for securely transmitting information as a JSON object. | A newer, opinionated security token format designed to eliminate common JWT pitfalls. |
| Purpose | Used for authentication, authorization, and data exchange. | Same purposes as JWT, but with stronger cryptographic safety guarantees. |
| Design Philosophy | Flexible but puts responsibility on developers to choose algorithms correctly. | Secure by design — disallows insecure algorithms and enforces best practices. |
Structure
Both JWT and PASETO are compact, URL‑safe tokens, but differ slightly in structure.
JWT format
..PASETO format
vX.local. (for symmetric encryption)
vX.public. (for asymmetric signing)Example
- JWT:
eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9... - PASETO:
v2.local.DWr6k19Cz3rG...
PASETO includes the version (v1, v2, etc.) and purpose (local, public) directly in the token, making it self‑descriptive and versioned for future updates.
Security Considerations
| Aspect | JWT | PASETO |
|---|---|---|
| Algorithm Flexibility | Allows many algorithms (HS256, RS256, none…), which can lead to misuse (e.g., “alg:none” attack). | Restricts algorithms per version (e.g., v2 uses AES‑256‑GCM and Ed25519). No insecure or deprecated options. |
| Implementation Safety | Developers must choose and configure algorithms carefully. | Developers can’t misconfigure algorithms — safe defaults only. |
| Token Validation | Potentially error‑prone; requires checking algorithm and signature explicitly. | Safer validation — the version and purpose dictate how to validate. |
In short: PASETO prevents developers from making cryptographic mistakes that JWT allows.
Performance
| Aspect | JWT | PASETO |
|---|---|---|
| Size | Typically smaller due to base64 encoding. | Slightly larger due to additional metadata. |
| Speed | Comparable — depends on algorithm used (HMAC vs. Ed25519). | Usually on par or faster for modern crypto libraries. |
Adoption and Ecosystem
| Aspect | JWT | PASETO |
|---|---|---|
| Adoption Level | Very widely used across frameworks, libraries, and APIs. | Gaining traction but still less common. |
| Tooling Support | Extensive (Auth0, Okta, etc.). | Growing support in popular languages. |
| Learning Curve | Lower (more examples, tutorials). | Slightly higher (newer and fewer resources). |
Use Cases
| Scenario | Recommended Token |
|---|---|
| Legacy systems or existing JWT‑based auth flows | ✅ JWT |
| New applications prioritizing strong cryptographic safety | ✅ PASETO |
| Highly regulated or security‑sensitive environments (finance, healthcare) | ✅ PASETO |
| Interoperability with third‑party APIs | ✅ JWT (for now) |
Example Comparison
JWT Example (HS256)
{
"alg": "HS256",
"typ": "JWT"
}
.
{
"sub": "1234567890",
"name": "John Doe",
"admin": true
}PASETO Example (v2.local)
{
"sub": "1234567890",
"name": "John Doe",
"admin": true,
"exp": "2025-12-26T00:00:00Z"
}The main difference: PASETO doesn’t expose or allow algorithm specification in the token itself — preventing “algorithm confusion” attacks.
Summary Table
| Feature | JWT | PASETO |
|---|---|---|
| Security | ⚠️ Depends on implementation | ✅ Secure by design |
| Algorithm Selection | Manual | Enforced and versioned |
| Ease of Use | Easy but error‑prone | Easy and safe |
| Ecosystem | Mature and widespread | Growing steadily |
| Backward Compatibility | Strong | Moderate |
| Recommended for New Systems | ❌ | ✅ |
Final Thoughts
JWTs have served as the de facto standard for token‑based authentication for years. However, their flexibility can lead to security misconfigurations.
PASETO modernizes the concept by enforcing secure defaults, making it a safer alternative for developers who want simplicity without sacrificing cryptographic integrity.
In short:
- If you need wide compatibility — use JWT.
- If you want modern security — use PASETO.
References
- JWT:
- PASETO: