Auth0 Reviews

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. Additionally, it lacks a third-party application for provisioning, a feature that Okta provides.

The tool's MFA is not as good as Microsoft Authenticator or Okta. It relies on email-based MFA, where it sends a code for verification. However, it lacks mobile apps for MFA like Microsoft Authenticator or Okta's mobile client.

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.

I haven't used the tool's technical support yet, but it has good documentation and an online community for support. 

The solution's deployment is easy. 

The tool is cheaper compared to competing solutions. Those alternatives tended to be more expensive. Consequently, Okta purchased it because it was considerably cheaper. The solution even offered some free services while still providing excellent functionality.

However, I'm unsure about the current pricing structure since Okta acquired it. Okta aims to make money, and it has faced security issues in the past.

The tool's universal login feature impacted user experience mostly in the social login aspect. This includes accessing platforms like Facebook or WhatsApp using a Gmail account, which has become standard and is no longer seen as rocket science. When you log in, the company generates an SSO token, often from Azure AD. I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten. 

Social media integration: Auth0 supports over 30 social logins with support for the major ones such as Facebook, Twitter and Google. Besides the 30 or so out-of-the-box providers, Auth0 also allows custom social connections through their extensions framework. This to me provides a great amount of flexibility to solution architects.

Ready-to-use modern APIs using JSON/RESTfull

LDAP integration

It enables the concept of identity management.

The feature improvement I would like to see in Auth0 is around authorization. They can borrow Stormpath's (their primary competitor) notion of groups and organizations built-in on their API. Currently Auth0 takes a different approach, i.e., it uses rules to store authorization-related info on the metadata.

I have used it for nine months.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I did encounter a scalability issue. Auth0 support engineer could have been more descriptive on the infra needs for the on-premise installation. The solution had only one MongoDB instance, which became a single point of failure. Once we hit the bottleneck, the Auth0 team was prompt enough to set up a master-slave structure to fix the issue. They could have thought about it up front.

Level of technical support - 7/10. They keep changing the support engineers (shared resource pool). Every time a new engineer comes, we have to give him/her the complete background before he/she becomes productive.

I did not previously use a different solution.

It is very easy to use the public cloud instance.

Before choosing this product, I also evaluated Stormpath.

Be specific about the number of users, number of transactions, and the amount of data to be transferred.

Share your user journey with Auth0 up front. Jointly problem-solve on how best to minimize the number of API calls to Auth0.

I'm a security architect. The product is used by our customers, not by our company people directly, so I expect we would have several thousand people using this solution.

It has improved our organization by providing login authentication for a mobile app.

The most valuable feature would have to be authentication using OpenID Connect.

The product could use a more flexible administration structure in the next release. It could be improved by extending the administration model. 

There is no problem with product stability. 

We haven't had any problems with scalability. 

We've had good experience with technical support. 

We previously used a different solution which was an open-source solution that was on-prem. I can't recall the name of that, but it was an open-source tool. One of the main reasons we switched to Auth0 is that supporting an on-prem version required a certain amount of expertise and management and we didn't need to be spending money on that if we were using a software as a service provider.

The other aspect was that on-prem you have to manage the security yourself. By using a software product as a service provider in the cloud, we were able to outsource those security concerns to them. The security was their responsibility and no longer our problem.

The setup is straightforward. We've deployed it in a number of applications, some of those would have taken less than a couple of days of development and deployment, and some of them would have taken weeks. But it's dependent on the complexity of the deployment. That's not a function of Auth0, it's a function of what our digital transformation is trying to do. We used an Auth0 consultant for deployment. 

We used an Auth0 consultant for implementation and he was very good and very knowledgeable. There is nobody in our company dedicated to maintaining the system for our customers. 

There are licensing costs for this product. We have an enterprise agreement with Auth0.

We evaluated a couple of other options before choosing Auth0. We looked at Microsoft and Okta. We went with Auth0 because at the time Microsoft was about to renew, so it wasn't as easy to set up, although Microsoft is a fine product and Okta is also a fine product, at that stage, it was more aligned on-prem authentication than it was to B2C.

In terms of advice, I think that if your application is developer-driven, then Auth0 provides extremely good developer support and supports multiple development tools and strategies. That's where I believe the product comes into its own. If you're enterprise, then Okta or Microsoft are probably a better solution. It's worth watching.

I would rate this product an eight out of 10. 

Our initial use case was authentication. We didn't want to implement anything from scratch, so we needed an out-of-the-box solution. That's why we chose Auth0.

Right now, it's deployed on-premises for our development environment and on cloud. The cloud provider is AWS.

We're in the beginning stages of a project, so only 10 people are currently using this solution in my organization.

Currently, we're just using the login and sign-up features. 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.

The Management API could be improved so it's easier to get user information.

I've been using Auth0 for three months.

The solution is stable.

I've had a few problems with the scalability, but it's okay overall.

Initial setup is easy. Deployment took less than an hour.

There are different price levels: B2B, B2C, and enterprise.

The basic plan is about $1,500 per month.

The basic plan is good for our requirements. In the future, we might get the enterprise plan.

I think Auth0 is worth the cost.

I would rate this solution as six out of ten. 

There are a few small problems, like with Management API. For integration purposes, it's easy to use. The solution is good for starting projects and for startups. There are a few other options for out-of-the-box solutions, like AWS or Azure AD, but we chose Auth0.

We were evaluating Auth0 as centralized authentication solution for our in-house development. We are searching for the best solution to take care of this because our product development is ongoing, and we want to find just the right fit. Ultimately, we did not choose Auth0.

The most valuable feature is that it is simple to integrate, irrespective of your codebase.

This is a costly solution and the price of it should be reduced.

We had been evaluating and testing Auth0 for between three and four months.

It is pretty much stable. We did not encounter any issues with respect to integration and testing.

Considering we are conducting a PoC, we are not able to fully test scalability. However, our understanding is that it scales well.

My team was in touch with their counterparts from marketing and technical resources, but because it was a PoC engagement, we did not take it further.

We did not use another SSO product before our current PoC began.

We have been evaluating multiple single sign-on solutions including Auth0 and Okta.

We run a successful proof of concept but we did not select Auth0 because their entire structure is hosted on AWS, and we are a data center company so we thought that having the backend hosted on AWS was not the right choice for us.

Had this same solution been available as a private deployment then it would have been the right fit for us.

During our exploration and evaluation, Auth0 and Okta were the top contenders from a pure authentication point. My advice for anybody who is considering such a system is to have multiple authentication systems evaluated from a technical point of view, and adopt the one which rightly suits your use case and requirements. Different products have different features sets, but what matters most is that it is purely compatible with your use case. Scalability is probably the most crucial factor.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I implemented the use of authentication workflow entirely on the client side (S.P.A./Single Page Application). This gives the client app a JWT and makes the infrastructure a lot easier to manage in a distributed way since I don't need to track user sessions on the servers anymore. Now, 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).

We are now able to dockerize stateless containers quote easily. A typical solution for managing session data is to put it into a database, but now we don't need to do that either. Auth0 essentially acts as the database backend. However, unlike regular session management through a database, whereby one needs to touch the database every time to re-hydrate session data for every request, I only make requests to Auth0 to query for profile data when needed, thus making the application more efficient.

The documentation and getting started guide is excellent for JWT and client-side authentication. However, 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.

I've just started using it.

No issues encountered.

We used regular OAuth in conjunction with our own database for people without social accounts. This is much better because everything is wrapped and normalized through one service. It even supports non-OAuth solutions such as Active Directory and LDAP which is good.

It was extremely simple and their site even generates sample code in various languages.

The most valuable feature of the product is scalability. 

The tool's price should be improved. 

I have been using the product for three years. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

The primary use case of this solution is to authenticate APIs, customer authentication, and business-to-business authentication.

The valuable features are that it is extremely secure and that it's developer-friendly.

In the past, there was an issue with the multi-tenant where there wasn't the ability to manage them. For example, if you have three tenants you couldn't have different managers, but that has been sorted out through the release tool.

I have been using Auth0 for three years.

This solution is stable, we have not had any issues.

It's a scalable product.

We have contacted technical support and find that they are good.

The initial setup of the solution was simple, but our requirements were complex.

The deployment time varied depending on the complexity. Some would have taken a week while others would have taken three months.

We used external consultants and consultants through Auth0 to help with the implementation.

This solution does what we want it to do. It's good and I don't see any issues.

For anyone wanting to use this solution, make sure that your developers are fully engaged. They have to know how Auth0 works and what the best way to leverage it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.