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 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)."
"It has a lot of customization and out-of-the-box features."
"It is easily connected and easy to put our app in single sign-on."
"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."
"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'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 supports identity federation, FSO and multi-tenancy."
"Using [Azure AD's] passwordless technology, you're not even using a password anymore. You're basically just creating a logon request without actually sending or typing or storing the password. This is awesome for any user, regardless of whether you're a factory worker or a CFO. It's secure and super-simple."
"The solution allows users to authenticate from home, and the Office 360 integration is advantageous."
"Two very important features in terms of security are governance and compliance through the Conditional Access policies and Azure Log Analytics."
"The most valuable components of the solution are provisioning and deprovisioning since both features work...Microsoft Entra Verified ID is a very stable solution."
"The most valuable features of this solution are definitely the authorization and authentication, and the rule-based user validation."
"A couple of features are valuable, but the one that comes across the most to me is multi-factor authentication."
"Conditional access is a very important feature where a specific user can be restricted such that they cannot connect to the application if they travel outside of the US."
"As an end-user, the access to shared resources that I get from using this product is very helpful."
"The product could use a more flexible administration structure"
"The Management API could be improved so it's easier to get user information."
"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 price modelling is a bit confusing on the site and can be costly."
"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."
"When they introduced the Organizations feature they did support different login screens per organization. However, they introduced a dependency between this feature and another called the New Universal Login Experience. The New Experience is a more lightweight login screen, but it is much less customizable. For example, today, we are able to fully customize our login screen and even control the background image according to the time of day. We have code to do that. But we are not able to write code anymore in the New Experience."
"The tool's price should be improved."
"The product support for multi-tenancy could be improved."
"The security policy of Azure Active Directory should be based on a matrix so that we can easily visualize which users have access to what."
"My understanding is, in the future, they will be able to bring everything into one single platform and they are not there yet."
"The integration between the Azure active directory and the traditional active directory could be improved upon."
"There is a concept of cross-tenant trust relationships, which I believe Microsoft is actively pursuing. That is something which in the coming days and years to come by will be very key to the success of Azure Active Directory, because many organizations are going into mergers and acquisitions or spinning off new companies. They will still have to access the old tenant information because of multiple legal reasons, compliance reasons, and all those things. So, there should be some level of tenant-level trust functionality, where you can bring people from other tenants to access some part of your tenant application. So, that is an area which is growing. I believe Microsoft is actively pursuing this, and it will be an interesting piece."
"The cost of licensing always has room for improvement."
"Entra ID is not battle-tested or stable enough to support a business of our size. There are some design issues specifically around support for legacy services."
"When it comes to Azure, creating certain things or getting different resources isn't very clear. You need a certain level of knowledge of the system. It could be a little bit more friendly so that some of the things can be done easily, but after everything is created, it's easy to use."
"The management interface has some areas that need improvement."
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.