Laravel Sanctum適合簡單、輕量的API認證，如SPA或移動應(yīng)用，而Passport適用于需要完整OAuth2功能的場景。1. Sanctum提供基于令牌的認證，適合第一方客戶端；2. Passport支持授權(quán)碼、客戶端憑證等復(fù)雜流程，適合第三方開發(fā)者接入；3. Sanctum安裝配置更簡單，維護成本低；4. Passport功能全面但配置復(fù)雜，適合需要精細權(quán)限控制的平臺。選擇時應(yīng)根據(jù)項目需求判斷是否需要OAuth2特性。

If you're building an API with Laravel and trying to choose between Sanctum and Passport for authentication, the main thing to understand is this: Sanctum is simpler and works well for SPAs, mobile apps, and token-based APIs, while Passport gives you full OAuth2 server functionality if your app needs things like third-party access or more complex authorization flows.

Here’s how to decide which one fits your project better.

When to use Laravel Sanctum

Sanctum is perfect when you want a lightweight, easy-to-setup solution for authenticating first-party clients—like your own SPA (e.g., Vue or React frontend) or mobile app.

• It uses API tokens with optional expiration
• Works great with stateless authentication via Authorization: Bearer [token]
• Easy to set up: just install, run a migration, and assign tokens to users

It doesn’t support full OAuth2 features like authorization codes or client credentials flow. So if you don't need those, Sanctum is faster to implement and easier to maintain.

For example, in a small SaaS app where only your own users log in from your frontend or mobile app, Sanctum covers all your needs without extra overhead.

Use Sanctum if:

• You’re building a simple API
• You don’t need OAuth2
• You control both the frontend and backend

When Laravel Passport is the right choice

Passport is the go-to option if your application needs to act as a full OAuth2 server—for example, if third parties will access your API on behalf of users, or if you're offering developer-facing APIs that require client ID/secret pairs.

• Full support for OAuth2 flows: authorization code, client credentials, password grant, etc.
• Built-in UI for developers to create their own API clients
• More complex setup and configuration than Sanctum

This is useful in cases like a public API platform where external developers can register applications and request scopes/permissions. Think of services like Stripe or GitHub—they allow third-party integrations using OAuth tokens, and Passport supports that out of the box.

Use Passport if:

• You need OAuth2 features
• You’re building an API for third-party developers
• You need fine-grained access control with scopes and tokens per client

Setup and maintenance differences

Both packages are maintained by Laravel, but they differ in complexity and ongoing maintenance:

Sanctum setup steps:

• Install via Composer
• Run migrations
• Add HasApiTokens trait to User model
• Issue tokens via login endpoint

Passport setup steps:

• Install via Composer
• Run more migrations (for OAuth tables)
• Encrypt keys (php artisan passport:install --encrypt)
• Configure providers and guards
• Set up password grant client if needed

Sanctum is easier to manage long-term because it has fewer moving parts. Passport requires more attention, especially around key management and token revocation.

Also, if you ever need to move from Sanctum to Passport later, it's doable—but you’ll have to refactor your auth layer.

So depending on what kind of API you're building, one might clearly fit better than the other. For most internal or single-purpose APIs, Sanctum is enough. If you're planning to open your system to third-party clients or need advanced OAuth features, Passport is the way to go.

That's basically it — not rocket science, but worth thinking through before locking in your decision.

以上是選擇API身份驗證的Laravel Sanctum和Passport的詳細內(nèi)容。更多信息請關(guān)注PHP中文網(wǎng)其他相關(guān)文章！