Top 10 Decentralized Identity (DID) Platforms: Features, Pros, Cons & Comparison

Top Tools

Posted on February 20, 2026 | by rajeshkumar

Introduction (100–200 words)

Decentralized Identity (DID) platforms help people and organizations prove “who they are” (or specific attributes about themselves) without relying on a single central identity provider. Instead of one company holding all identity data, DID ecosystems typically use verifiable credentials (VCs), cryptographic proofs, and decentralized identifiers so users can share only what’s necessary—often directly from a wallet to a verifier.

This matters more in 2026+ because digital trust is under pressure: AI-driven fraud is rising, privacy regulations are tightening, and businesses need secure, interoperable ways to onboard customers, employees, and partners globally.

Common use cases include:

Reusable KYC / KYB across services (share once, reuse many times)
Employee, contractor, and partner credentials (role, training, access entitlement)
Age or residency proof without exposing full identity
Education and certification credentials (degrees, licenses, badges)
Supply-chain and device identity (provenance, compliance, IoT enrollment)

What buyers should evaluate:

Standards support (DID methods, W3C VCs, OpenID4VC patterns)
Wallet, issuer, and verifier capabilities (end-to-end flow maturity)
Revocation, status, and lifecycle management
Integration options (APIs, SDKs, IAM/CIAM, CRM, KYC providers)
Privacy tech (selective disclosure, ZK proofs, data minimization)
Security controls (key management, auditability, tenancy isolation)
Governance and interoperability (network choice, trust registries)
Deployment model (cloud vs self-hosted) and data residency
Reliability and support (SLAs, docs, community)
Total cost and operational complexity

Mandatory paragraph

Best for: IT/security leaders, product teams, and developers building high-trust onboarding and portable credentials for finance, healthcare, education, marketplaces, enterprise access, and regulated B2B ecosystems—especially mid-market and enterprise organizations with multiple partners or jurisdictions.

Not ideal for: teams that only need basic login (username/password, SSO) or simple customer auth. In those cases, a conventional IAM/CIAM solution may be faster and cheaper. Also not ideal if you cannot invest in ecosystem alignment (issuers/verifiers) or if your use case requires centralized control over all identity data for legacy compliance reasons.

Key Trends in Decentralized Identity (DID) Platforms for 2026 and Beyond

AI-fueled fraud drives stronger identity signals: DID-based attestations and cryptographic proofs are increasingly used to counter deepfakes, synthetic identities, and automated account creation.
OpenID4VC becomes the “integration language”: Wallet-to-verifier flows increasingly align around OpenID for Verifiable Credentials patterns to reduce custom integrations.
Selective disclosure and ZK proofs go mainstream: More verifiers accept “prove you’re over 18” or “prove you’re accredited” without revealing full identity details.
Enterprise IAM convergence: DID platforms integrate more tightly with IAM stacks (workforce IAM, CIAM), bridging SSO + credentials rather than replacing SSO.
Credential lifecycle maturity becomes a differentiator: Revocation/status lists, re-issuance, expiry, auditing, and policy-based verification become table-stakes.
Wallet UX and recoverability improve: 2026 buyers scrutinize key recovery, device migration, and account recovery flows to reduce user lockout.
Governance and trust registries expand: Ecosystems adopt registries for issuer authorization, schema governance, and compliance-aligned trust frameworks.
Hybrid deployment becomes common: Sensitive workloads run self-hosted/HSM-backed, while verification endpoints and dev tooling remain cloud-managed.
Privacy regulation pressure increases: Data minimization, purpose limitation, consent, and auditability are embedded into credential designs.
Pricing shifts to “verification volume” and “issued credentials”: Many offerings align cost with credential issuance, verification events, and advanced cryptographic features.

How We Selected These Tools (Methodology)

Prioritized platforms and stacks with clear DID/VC positioning (issuer/verifier/wallet or DID network + tooling).
Considered market adoption and mindshare among enterprises, standards bodies, and developer communities.
Evaluated feature completeness across issuance, verification, revocation/status, schema management, and policy controls.
Looked for interoperability signals (support for common DID methods and VC exchange patterns).
Assessed reliability/performance indicators (production use cases, enterprise-readiness cues, operational tooling).
Considered security posture signals such as key management options, audit logs, RBAC, and tenant isolation (where publicly described).
Weighted tools with strong integration/SDK ecosystems (APIs, mobile SDKs, connectors).
Included a balanced mix of enterprise offerings, developer-first platforms, and open-source stacks to reflect real buying paths.

Top 10 Decentralized Identity (DID) Platforms Tools

#1 — Microsoft Entra Verified ID

Short description (2–3 lines): A verifiable credentials capability within Microsoft’s identity ecosystem, designed for organizations that want to issue and verify credentials with strong enterprise integration. Best for enterprises already invested in Microsoft security and identity tooling.

Key Features

Issuer and verifier capabilities for verifiable credentials workflows
Enterprise-friendly administration aligned with identity operations
Integration patterns that fit modern workplace and partner access scenarios
Policy-driven verification for common proof scenarios
Credential lifecycle handling (issuance and validation flows)
Fits into broader Microsoft security and identity management approach

Pros

Strong fit for enterprise IT teams standardizing on Microsoft identity
Practical for B2B, workforce, and partner credential scenarios
Mature operational posture compared with many niche DID offerings

Cons

Can be less attractive if you want a vendor-neutral stack end-to-end
May feel heavyweight for startups or narrow pilot projects
Ecosystem choices may be influenced by Microsoft-aligned patterns

Platforms / Deployment

Web
Cloud

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs: Common in Microsoft Entra environments (specifics vary by configuration)
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / HIPAA: Not publicly stated (for this specific feature as a standalone claim)

Integrations & Ecosystem

Designed to work well with enterprise identity operations and common corporate IT workflows, with APIs and admin-driven configuration common to Microsoft environments.

Microsoft identity and access workflows
Enterprise directory and access governance patterns
APIs/SDKs for credential issuance and verification integration
Fits with common enterprise app onboarding approaches

Support & Community

Enterprise support motions are typical for Microsoft offerings; documentation is generally robust. Community depends on the specific developer audience and ecosystem adoption. Support tiers: Varies / Not publicly stated.

#2 — ION (Identity Overlay Network)

Short description (2–3 lines): An open DID network implementation associated with a Bitcoin-anchored approach, aimed at decentralized identifier creation and resolution at scale. Best for teams that want a network-centric DID method and can assemble supporting components.

Key Features

DID method designed for large-scale decentralized identifiers
Network approach intended to reduce reliance on a single registry operator
Enables DID creation, updates, and resolution patterns
Compatible with broader DID/VC architectures (when paired with credential layers)
Developer-centric approach for building custom identity solutions
Encourages modular architecture (wallet/issuer/verifier can be separate)

Pros

Appealing for teams prioritizing decentralization and long-term DID portability
Strong fit for custom architectures and network-level DID strategies
Avoids lock-in to a single identity database operator

Cons

Not a full “platform” by itself; you’ll still need credential and wallet components
Higher implementation burden than end-to-end SaaS platforms
Operational considerations depend on how you run and integrate components

Platforms / Deployment

Varies / N/A (implementation-dependent)

Security & Compliance

Not publicly stated (security controls depend heavily on your deployment and surrounding services)

Integrations & Ecosystem

Often used as a DID layer that teams integrate with separate issuance/verification services and wallets.

Works with custom credential services and VC libraries
Integrates via DID resolution and DID document operations
Can be paired with enterprise IAM/CIAM via custom middleware

Support & Community

Primarily ecosystem and developer-community driven. Support model depends on how you adopt it (self-managed vs partners). Varies / Not publicly stated.

#3 — Trinsic

Short description (2–3 lines): A developer-first platform to build verifiable credential solutions with hosted infrastructure and APIs. Best for product teams that want to ship DID/VC use cases without assembling everything from scratch.

Key Features

APIs/SDKs for issuing and verifying verifiable credentials
Credential templates/schemas to standardize issuance
Wallet and verifier experience support (implementation-dependent)
Revocation/status mechanisms (capability varies by configuration)
Multi-tenant patterns suitable for SaaS and B2B networks
Developer tooling to speed up pilots and production rollouts

Pros

Faster time-to-value for product teams building credential workflows
Developer-friendly approach reduces complexity vs raw open-source stacks
Good fit for reusable KYC/KYB and partner verification use cases

Cons

Platform abstraction may limit low-level customization for some teams
Long-term portability depends on how you model schemas and trust
Pricing can be hard to evaluate publicly (often usage-based)

Platforms / Deployment

Web
Cloud

Security & Compliance

MFA / RBAC / audit logs: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Typically positioned for API-driven integration into onboarding, verification, and partner portals.

REST APIs and SDKs
Custom app integration (web/mobile)
Can integrate with existing KYC providers via workflow orchestration
Webhooks/event-driven patterns (implementation-dependent)

Support & Community

Generally strong developer documentation and onboarding materials for API users; support tiers vary by plan. Community strength: Varies / Not publicly stated.

#4 — MATTR

Short description (2–3 lines): A platform focused on verifiable credentials and decentralized identity building blocks for enterprises and governments. Best for organizations implementing production-grade credential programs with governance needs.

Key Features

Issuer and verifier tooling for VC-based identity programs
Governance-friendly support for credential schemes and policies
SDKs and APIs aimed at production implementations
Credential lifecycle controls (issuance, verification, status)
Suitable for regulated or high-assurance use cases
Emphasis on interoperability patterns and ecosystem participation

Pros

Strong fit for formal credential programs (regulated industries, public sector)
Balanced approach between developer tooling and governance needs
Designed for real-world credential ecosystems (issuers/verifiers at scale)

Cons

May be more than you need for a lightweight prototype
Integration effort depends on your wallet and channel strategy
Some capabilities may require professional services or deeper setup

Platforms / Deployment

Web
Cloud (Self-hosted/Hybrid: Not publicly stated)

Security & Compliance

SSO/SAML, MFA, RBAC, audit logs: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Typically integrated into onboarding, partner verification, and credential issuance workflows with an ecosystem approach.

APIs and SDKs for issuer/verifier apps
Integration into portals and workflow engines
Works alongside IAM/CIAM rather than replacing it
Mobile wallet integrations (implementation-dependent)

Support & Community

Documentation and implementation guidance are commonly positioned for enterprise rollouts; support tiers vary. Community: Varies / Not publicly stated.

#5 — Dock (Dock Network / Dock Certs tooling)

Short description (2–3 lines): A DID/VC-oriented ecosystem that has offered tooling for issuing and verifying credentials, often associated with its own network approach. Best for teams seeking a focused identity network plus credential capabilities.

Key Features

Verifiable credential issuance and verification tooling
DID support aligned with network-based identity primitives
Credential schemas/templates for standardized claims
On-chain or network-based anchoring patterns (implementation-dependent)
Developer tools for building credential workflows
Suitable for B2B credential exchange in defined ecosystems

Pros

Clear focus on verifiable credentials and decentralized identity
Useful for organizations building ecosystem trust with shared standards
Can reduce complexity compared with assembling raw components

Cons

Network/ecosystem choices can affect interoperability strategy
Enterprise security/compliance details may not be fully public
Long-term architecture depends on your requirements for neutrality

Platforms / Deployment

Web
Cloud / Network-based (Self-hosted: Not publicly stated)

Security & Compliance

Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Typically API-driven with a focus on issuing and verifying credentials in partner ecosystems.

APIs/SDKs for issuer and verifier integration
Custom web portals and partner onboarding systems
Wallet interoperability patterns (implementation-dependent)
Schema governance integration (implementation-dependent)

Support & Community

Community and support depend on the specific Dock tooling adopted and your plan/contract. Varies / Not publicly stated.

#6 — cheqd

Short description (2–3 lines): A DID/VC network and tooling approach focused on decentralized identity primitives and credential ecosystems. Best for teams building interoperable credential networks that need flexible economic and governance models.

Key Features

DID infrastructure aligned with decentralized identity standards
Credential ecosystem building blocks (issuer/verifier patterns)
Support for decentralized governance and network participation
Focus on reusable credentials and ecosystem trust
Developer tooling for DID and credential flows
Extensible approach for multi-party networks

Pros

Strong ecosystem angle for multi-issuer, multi-verifier networks
Useful when neutrality and network governance matter
Can fit cross-organization trust frameworks

Cons

Not a turnkey “enterprise suite” by default
Requires architectural decisions (wallets, UX, verification policy)
Security/compliance posture depends on how components are deployed

Platforms / Deployment

Varies / N/A (network + tooling; implementation-dependent)

Security & Compliance

Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Often paired with custom apps, wallets, and verification services in a broader SSI architecture.

DID operations integrated via SDKs/APIs
Works with VC libraries and verification services
Can integrate into partner portals and onboarding workflows
Trust registry patterns (implementation-dependent)

Support & Community

Community-oriented ecosystem with documentation; support varies by engagement model. Varies / Not publicly stated.

#7 — SpruceID

Short description (2–3 lines): A decentralized identity company known for practical identity and credentialing building blocks, often used in privacy-preserving authentication and verification flows. Best for teams that want modern DID/VC and wallet-adjacent primitives with a developer focus.

Key Features

Building blocks for decentralized identity and credential workflows
Support for DID/VC standards and modern auth patterns
Privacy-oriented approaches (data minimization and proof patterns)
Developer tooling for integrating identity into apps
Suitable for login-adjacent use cases and attestations
Flexible components that can fit into broader architectures

Pros

Strong fit for developer teams building privacy-preserving UX
Useful for organizations that want modular components vs monolith suites
Aligns well with modern identity patterns beyond basic SSO

Cons

May require more solution design than “all-in-one” DID platforms
Enterprise compliance details may not be fully public
Capability breadth depends on which components you adopt

Platforms / Deployment

Varies / N/A

Security & Compliance

Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Often integrated into custom web/mobile apps and identity flows, paired with wallets and verification services.

APIs/SDKs (component-dependent)
Integration into onboarding and proof workflows
Works alongside existing IAM/CIAM stacks via custom integration
Interop with VC-compatible wallets (implementation-dependent)

Support & Community

Developer-oriented documentation is common; support varies by product and contract. Community: Varies / Not publicly stated.

#8 — Indicio

Short description (2–3 lines): An enterprise-focused decentralized identity company often associated with Hyperledger Aries/Indy-based solutions and production deployments. Best for organizations that want SSI-style credentials with enterprise services and implementation support.

Key Features

Issuer and verifier solutions for verifiable credentials
Aries/Indy-aligned agent patterns (implementation-dependent)
Credential lifecycle handling including status/revocation patterns
Enterprise deployment support and architecture guidance
Suitable for multi-party ecosystems (education, workforce, supply chain)
Interoperability-aligned design using established SSI patterns

Pros

Practical for enterprise rollouts that need implementation support
Strong alignment with established SSI agent architectures
Good fit for consortiums and multi-organization ecosystems

Cons

May be more complex than SaaS-first VC issuance tools
Architecture choices (agents, ledgers) require up-front decisions
Some capabilities depend on services engagement

Platforms / Deployment

Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid (implementation-dependent)

Security & Compliance

RBAC / audit logs / encryption: Not publicly stated
SOC 2 / ISO 27001: Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Often integrates with enterprise systems and partner networks where credentials must be verified across organizations.

APIs and agent-based integration patterns
Connectors via custom middleware to IAM/HRIS/CRM
Works with VC-compatible wallets and verifier apps
Ecosystem/consortium integrations (implementation-dependent)

Support & Community

Support is typically positioned for enterprise implementations; community overlaps with Aries/Indy ecosystems. Varies / Not publicly stated.

#9 — Polygon ID

Short description (2–3 lines): A decentralized identity approach emphasizing privacy-preserving proofs (commonly associated with zero-knowledge techniques) for verifying claims without revealing underlying data. Best for apps that need modern privacy guarantees and selective disclosure at scale.

Key Features

Privacy-preserving verification patterns (selective disclosure / ZK-style proofs)
Suitable for “prove X without revealing Y” use cases
Wallet-centric approach for user-controlled credentials (implementation-dependent)
On-chain and off-chain integration patterns (implementation-dependent)
Developer tooling for building verification into apps
Strong fit for consumer-scale verification scenarios

Pros

Strong privacy story for sensitive attribute verification
Well-suited for consumer apps and large-scale verifications
Can reduce data retention burden for verifiers

Cons

Requires careful UX and key management design (wallet recovery, device changes)
Not always aligned with enterprise IAM expectations out of the box
Compliance posture depends on your full architecture (not just the proof layer)

Platforms / Deployment

Varies / N/A (ecosystem-dependent)

Security & Compliance

Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem

Commonly integrated into applications that need privacy-preserving proofs at verification time.

SDKs/APIs for verification flows (implementation-dependent)
Integration into web/mobile apps and partner portals
Works with credential issuance pipelines (implementation-dependent)
Composability with blockchain-based ecosystems (implementation-dependent)

Support & Community

Developer community tends to be active in web3-adjacent ecosystems; enterprise-grade support tiers vary. Varies / Not publicly stated.

#10 — Hyperledger Aries + Hyperledger Indy (Open-Source Stack)

Short description (2–3 lines): A widely known open-source stack for decentralized identity agents and credential exchange patterns. Best for teams that want maximum control, can self-host, and have engineering capacity to assemble and operate SSI infrastructure.

Key Features

Agent-based architecture for issuing, holding, and verifying credentials
Mature concepts for DIDComm-style messaging (implementation-dependent)
Strong control over deployment topology and data flows
Interoperability patterns used across multiple SSI ecosystems
Pluggable components (wallet storage, ledgers, transport)
Suitable for consortium networks and custom trust frameworks

Pros

High flexibility and control (no forced SaaS constraints)
Strong for long-lived ecosystems where neutrality matters
Large influence on SSI architecture patterns and agent designs

Cons

Highest implementation and operational overhead in this list
Requires deep expertise (crypto keys, agents, messaging, governance)
Production-hardening (monitoring, scaling, key custody) is on you

Platforms / Deployment

Linux / macOS / Windows (implementation-dependent)
Self-hosted / Hybrid (implementation-dependent)

Security & Compliance

Not publicly stated (depends on how you implement, host, and secure it)

Integrations & Ecosystem

Typically integrated via agents, SDKs, and custom services that connect to existing enterprise systems.

Agent SDKs and protocol implementations
Integration via middleware into IAM/CIAM, HR, CRM, KYC
Wallet interoperability depends on chosen agents and profiles
Broad ecosystem of implementers and solution providers

Support & Community

Strong open-source community footprint and documentation across projects; enterprise support typically comes from integrators and vendors. Community: Strong (relative to many DID stacks). Paid support: Varies / Not publicly stated.

Comparison Table (Top 10)

Tool Name	Best For	Platform(s) Supported	Deployment (Cloud/Self-hosted/Hybrid)	Standout Feature	Public Rating
Microsoft Entra Verified ID	Enterprises standardizing on Microsoft identity	Web	Cloud	Enterprise integration with identity operations	N/A
ION	Teams wanting a network-centric DID layer	Varies / N/A	Varies / N/A	DID network approach designed for scale	N/A
Trinsic	Developer teams shipping VC workflows quickly	Web	Cloud	API-first credential issuance/verification	N/A
MATTR	Regulated credential programs with governance needs	Web	Cloud (Hybrid: Not publicly stated)	Enterprise-grade credential program tooling	N/A
Dock	Ecosystem credentialing with a focused network/tooling	Web	Cloud / Network-based	Credential tooling aligned to network primitives	N/A
cheqd	Multi-party credential networks with governance flexibility	Varies / N/A	Varies / N/A	Ecosystem/network approach for DID/VC	N/A
SpruceID	Modular DID/VC components for modern privacy UX	Varies / N/A	Varies / N/A	Developer-friendly decentralized identity primitives	N/A
Indicio	Aries/Indy-style enterprise SSI deployments	Varies / N/A	Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid	Enterprise services around SSI agent architectures	N/A
Polygon ID	Privacy-preserving attribute verification	Varies / N/A	Varies / N/A	Selective disclosure / ZK-style verification patterns	N/A
Hyperledger Aries + Indy	Max-control open-source SSI stack	Varies / N/A	Self-hosted / Hybrid	Agent-based architecture and interoperability patterns	N/A

Evaluation & Scoring of Decentralized Identity (DID) Platforms

Weights:

Core features – 25%
Ease of use – 15%
Integrations & ecosystem – 15%
Security & compliance – 10%
Performance & reliability – 10%
Support & community – 10%
Price / value – 15%

Tool Name	Core (25%)	Ease (15%)	Integrations (15%)	Security (10%)	Performance (10%)	Support (10%)	Value (15%)	Weighted Total (0–10)
Microsoft Entra Verified ID	8.5	7.5	8.5	8.0	8.0	8.0	6.5	7.85
ION	6.5	4.5	6.0	6.0	7.0	6.0	7.5	6.25
Trinsic	8.0	8.0	7.5	6.5	7.5	7.0	7.0	7.50
MATTR	8.5	7.0	7.5	6.5	7.5	7.0	6.5	7.45
Dock	7.0	6.5	6.5	6.0	7.0	6.0	7.0	6.70
cheqd	7.0	5.5	6.5	6.0	7.0	6.0	7.0	6.55
SpruceID	7.0	6.5	6.5	6.0	6.5	6.5	7.0	6.63
Indicio	8.0	6.0	7.0	6.5	7.5	7.0	6.5	7.10
Polygon ID	7.5	6.0	6.5	6.0	7.5	6.5	7.5	6.95
Hyperledger Aries + Indy	8.5	4.5	7.5	6.0	7.0	8.0	8.5	7.25

How to interpret these scores:

Scores are comparative—they reflect relative fit across common buyer needs, not absolute “quality.”
A lower “Ease” score for open-source stacks often reflects implementation/ops burden, not lack of capability.
“Security & compliance” is conservative here because many vendors’ formal attestations are not publicly stated in a DID-specific context.
The right pick depends heavily on whether you prioritize enterprise integration, ecosystem neutrality, or privacy-first proofs.

Which Decentralized Identity (DID) Platforms Tool Is Right for You?

Solo / Freelancer

If you’re a solo builder, prioritize fast prototyping and minimal infrastructure:

Trinsic: strong fit if you want API-first issuance/verification with less setup.
Polygon ID: compelling if your use case is specifically privacy-preserving proofs and you’re comfortable operating in that ecosystem.
Hyperledger Aries + Indy: only if you’re intentionally learning SSI deeply and can tolerate complexity.

SMB

SMBs usually need one or two credential flows (e.g., partner verification, training completion) and fast integration:

Trinsic or SpruceID: good balance of developer experience and modularity.
Dock: can work well for a defined ecosystem where network alignment is acceptable.
Avoid over-investing in network governance early unless you already have partners committed.

Mid-Market

Mid-market teams often need multiple credential types, admin workflows, and better lifecycle controls:

MATTR: good fit when you need program governance and production patterns.
Indicio: strong choice when you want SSI-agent architectures and expect multi-party integrations.
Microsoft Entra Verified ID: excellent if you’re already standardized on Microsoft identity operations.

Enterprise

Enterprises should optimize for operational maturity, integrations, and risk management:

Microsoft Entra Verified ID: best fit for Microsoft-centric enterprises that want DID/VC without reinventing identity operations.
MATTR: strong for credential programs spanning org boundaries and requiring governance.
Indicio: practical for consortium/partner ecosystems using SSI-agent approaches.
Hyperledger Aries + Indy: best for enterprises that require maximum control/neutrality and can fund a platform team (or integrator) for production hardening.

Budget vs Premium

Budget-friendly (engineering-heavy): Hyperledger Aries + Indy, and network-centric approaches like ION (but budget shifts from license to staffing/ops).
Premium (time-to-value): Microsoft Entra Verified ID, MATTR, Trinsic—typically less infrastructure burden, but costs may be usage-based or contract-based.

Feature Depth vs Ease of Use

Deep control: Hyperledger Aries + Indy (most flexible, hardest to run).
Balanced platform: MATTR, Indicio (strong depth with implementation support).
Ease-first: Trinsic (quickest path to production for many app teams).

Integrations & Scalability

Ask: “Do we need to plug into IAM/CIAM, HR, CRM, KYC, and partner portals?”

If yes and you’re Microsoft-heavy: Microsoft Entra Verified ID.
If you need multi-party ecosystem integrations: MATTR or Indicio.
If you’re building a product and want fast API integration: Trinsic.

Security & Compliance Needs

If you have strict requirements (audit logs, RBAC, key custody, HSM, data residency), treat DID as an architecture, not just a tool.

Prefer offerings that support enterprise key management patterns (or self-host where necessary).
For high assurance, plan a security design review around:
key storage (HSM vs software)
wallet recovery
credential revocation/status
logging and audit trails
tenant isolation and admin controls

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is a DID platform in simple terms?

A DID platform provides tools to create decentralized identifiers and to issue/verify verifiable credentials. Instead of a central database proving identity, cryptographic proofs and credentials do.

How do DID platforms differ from SSO (like SAML/OIDC)?

SSO helps users sign into apps via a central identity provider. DID/VC helps users present proofs (attributes/credentials) that can work across organizations, often with more privacy and portability.

What pricing models are common for DID platforms?

Common models include per-issued credential, per-verification, per-active wallet/user, and enterprise contracts. Public pricing is often Not publicly stated for enterprise-focused offerings.

How long does implementation usually take?

A basic pilot can take weeks (one credential type, one verifier). Production rollouts often take months due to wallet UX, governance, security review, revocation, and partner onboarding.

What are the most common implementation mistakes?

Underestimating wallet UX and recovery, skipping revocation/status design, over-collecting data, and failing to align with ecosystem standards early (schemas, trust registries, verification policies).

Do I need blockchain for decentralized identity?

Not always. Some DID methods are ledger-based, others are not. Many practical solutions use a mix of decentralized identifiers plus off-chain credential exchange.

How do revocation and credential status work?

Typically via credential status endpoints/lists or registry mechanisms that allow verifiers to check if a credential is still valid. The exact approach varies by ecosystem and platform.

Are DID wallets required?

For many user-held credential scenarios, yes—a wallet is where users store and present credentials. Some B2B flows can be agent-based or service-held, but you still need secure key custody.

How do DID platforms help with privacy and data minimization?

They can enable selective disclosure (share only needed fields) and advanced proofs (prove a statement without revealing the underlying data). This can reduce what verifiers must store.

Can DID platforms integrate with our existing IAM/CIAM?

Yes, typically via APIs and workflows: IAM handles authentication/session, while DID/VC handles attribute proofs and reusable credentials. Integration maturity varies by tool.

How hard is it to switch DID platforms later?

Switching can be complex if you tightly couple schemas, credential formats, or wallet experiences. To reduce risk, favor standards-based credential models and maintain clear governance over schemas and keys.

What are alternatives if DID feels too heavy?

If you only need login and access control, use workforce IAM/CIAM. If you need verification, sometimes a centralized verification provider is sufficient—at the cost of portability and ecosystem interoperability.

Conclusion

Decentralized Identity (DID) platforms are moving from experimental pilots to real production programs—especially where trust, privacy, and reusable verification matter. In 2026+, the strongest solutions combine verifiable credentials, practical wallet/verifier UX, lifecycle controls (status/revocation), and integration paths into existing IAM, onboarding, and partner systems.

There isn’t a single “best” platform:

Choose enterprise-integrated options (like Microsoft Entra Verified ID) when operational maturity and internal alignment matter most.
Choose developer-first platforms (like Trinsic) when speed and product delivery are top priorities.
Choose open-source stacks (like Hyperledger Aries + Indy) when you need neutrality and maximum control—and can fund the engineering/ops effort.
Choose privacy-proof-centric ecosystems (like Polygon ID) when minimal disclosure is core to your value proposition.

Next step: shortlist 2–3 tools, run a narrow pilot (one credential, one verifier), and validate integrations, lifecycle (revocation/status), and security requirements before scaling to a broader credential program.