We compared Auth0 and Microsoft Entra ID based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Auth0 stands out for its robust security measures, customizable authentication options, and extensive support for various platforms. Users appreciate its comprehensive documentation and responsive customer service. In comparison, Microsoft Entra ID is valued for its user-friendly interface, efficient authentication process, and seamless integration. Customers praise its exceptional customer service and support. Auth0 users suggest improvements in UI and scalability, while Microsoft Entra ID users seek enhancements in UI design, usability, customization options, and security features.
Features: Auth0's valuable features include easy integration, robust security measures, seamless single sign-on, and customizable authentication. Users appreciate its scalability, platform support, documentation, and customer support. Microsoft Entra ID offers a user-friendly interface, efficient authentication, seamless integration, and easy navigation. Users appreciate its reliability and convenience across platforms.
Pricing and ROI: Auth0's setup cost is deemed fairly priced, with a simple and straightforward setup process. Additionally, users appreciate the flexibility and clarity of Auth0's licensing options. On the other hand, Microsoft Entra ID's pricing is seen as affordable and competitive. Users find the setup process to be efficient and hassle-free, and appreciate the flexibility and options available for licensing. Overall, both products have positive user feedback regarding pricing, setup cost, and licensing., Auth0's ROI is attributed to its reliability, integration, and secure authentication. Users value its ease of implementation and time-saving features. Microsoft Entra ID focuses on cost savings, efficiency, process streamlining, and productivity improvement.
Room for Improvement: Auth0 could benefit from improving its user interface design and making it more intuitive. Better documentation and clearer instructions are needed for setup and integration processes. In contrast, Microsoft Entra ID requires enhancements in user interface design, optimization for different devices, usability, sign-up process simplification, customization options, and advanced security features.
Deployment and customer support: The user reviews indicate that the time required for implementing a new tech solution with Auth0 can vary, ranging from three months for deployment to a week for setup. In contrast, users of Microsoft Entra ID reported spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, or just a week for both deployment and setup. The specific circumstances and context should be taken into account when evaluating the duration required for establishing a new tech solution., Customers who have used Auth0 have commended its customer service team for their prompt and helpful assistance. On the other hand, Microsoft Entra ID's customer service has been praised for being exceptional, efficient, and reliable, with users appreciating the effective communication and seamless problem resolution.
The summary above is based on 101 interviews we conducted recently with Auth0 and Microsoft Entra ID users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"It's a very powerful platform. It has the ability to do the usual stuff, according to modern protocols, like OIDC and OAuth 2. But the real benefit of using the platform comes from its flexibility to enhance it with rules and, now, with what they call authentication pipelines. That is the most significant feature, as it allows you to customize everything regarding the authentication and authorization process."
"It has improved our organization by providing login authentication for a mobile app."
"I simply use the JWT from the client on the server side to process requests and push updated profile data to a database/queue as needed and end the process without having to persist data in the web server (sessions)."
"The most valuable feature of the product is scalability."
"The most valuable feature is interface application integration, but we haven't fully used it yet. We'll need it in the future for a few potential clients."
"It supports identity federation, FSO and multi-tenancy."
"It is very scalable because it provides a new environment for companies based on their number of users and other factors. The tool can take a lot of users."
"It is easily connected and easy to put our app in single sign-on."
"Privileged Identity Management (PIM), managed identities, dynamic groups, and extension and security attributes are all great features."
"It's pretty easy to implement."
"It enhanced our end user experience quite a bit. Instead of the days of having to contact the service desk with challenges for choosing their password, users can go in and do it themselves locally, regardless of where they are in the world. This has certainly made it a better experience accessing their applications. Previously, a lot of times, they had to remember multiple usernames and passwords for different systems. This solution brings it all together, using a single sign-on experience."
"It is very simple. The Active Directory functions are very easy for us. Its integration with anything is very easy. We can easily do third-party multifactor authentication."
"It is one of those costs where you can't really quantify a return on investment. In the grand scheme of things, if we didn't have it, we would probably have a lot more breaches. It would be a lot harder to detect issues because we would have people using static usernames and passwords for various sites, making us open to a lot more attacks. The amount of security and benefit that we get out of it is not quantifiable but the return of investment from a qualitative point of view is much higher than not having it."
"Configuring the domain and setting it up in the Azure portal is just three clicks to be honest."
"The most valuable feature is Conditional Access, and we use it extensively."
"It helps with privacy control of identity data. It makes security very easy."
"This is a costly solution and the price of it should be reduced."
"There are indeed areas where the product could improve. For instance, Okta offers various application configurations, enabling access management, which the tool could consider implementing."
"I think they can do a better job in explaining what you're supposed to do next in order to correctly follow an idiomatic approach to using the solution beyond simply passing a JWT token to a server and having the server check then signature to validate the token."
"The tool's price should be improved."
"In the past, there was an issue with the multi-tenant where there wasn't the ability to manage them."
"There is a possibility to improve the machine-to-machine authentication flow. This part of Auth0 is not really well documented, and we could really gain some additional knowledge on that."
"The price modelling is a bit confusing on the site and can be costly."
"The product could use a more flexible administration structure"
"Four years ago, we had an issue with Azure AD. We wanted to reverse sync from Azure AD to on-prem Active Directory, but we couldn't achieve this. Azure AD could connect only in one way, for example, from your site to Azure. If you needed to do the reverse and connect from Azure to on-prem, there was no way to achieve it. We asked Microsoft, and they told us that they don't support it."
"My understanding is, in the future, they will be able to bring everything into one single platform and they are not there yet."
"There are some features, where if you want to access them, then you need to make use of PowerShell. If someone is not really versed in PowerShell scripting, then they would definitely have issues using some of those features in Azure Active Directory."
"The integration between the Azure active directory and the traditional active directory could be improved upon."
"Many of the features are outdated, so the UI and UX could be improved."
"From an admin perspective, I would like to see improvement in the Microsoft Graph API."
"Whatever business requirements we needed in the past three years, users were created, with the name of the user and they were not connected with the Active Directory. We were trying to in house in three years and with directory, but we were not able to achieve it."
"Microsoft should work on enhancing its machine-learning algorithm to prevent unnecessary lockouts of users."
Auth0 is ranked 5th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 14 reviews while Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 190 reviews. Auth0 is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Auth0 writes "Has good documentation but improvement is needed in MFA and application configurations ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Entra ID writes "Saves us time and money and features Conditional Access policies, SSPR, and MFA". Auth0 is most compared with Amazon Cognito, Frontegg, Cloudflare Access, ForgeRock and Okta Workforce Identity, whereas Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Ping Identity Platform and SailPoint Identity Security Cloud. See our Auth0 vs. Microsoft Entra ID report.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors and best Access Management vendors.
We monitor all Single Sign-On (SSO) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
