Auth0 alternatives and competitors

Our hybrid system includes in-house domain controllers and Azure integration to link with Microsoft Office solutions. We develop some small-time applications with Power BI and use the tool for local user authentications.

Our office has only two departments, so we don't use the solution across multiple locations. It's an in-house tool, and we created the hybrid system so that specific users can still connect remotely when they are off-prem. We have around 50 total end users. 

The solution made our organization very flexible and increased our security because we previously faced authentication issues; our users sometimes could not connect from their laptops when they took them off-premises. There were also occasions where the cache was lost, so we couldn't troubleshoot, and users could not log in. This issue was solved, and now the system is flawless.

Azure AD helped to save time for our IT administrators; I haven't calculated precisely how much, but I believe it saves me two to three hours a week. 

We are delighted with our organization's Azure AD user experience, so we have no complaints about that. One of the best aspects is we don't have to update anything; Microsoft handles all of that for us. 

The solution allows users to authenticate from home, and the Office 360 integration is advantageous.

Azure AD provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, making the user sign-on experience flawlessly consistent; there is little difference between working from home or on-premises.  

The single pane of glass makes the application of our security policies very consistent, as they are replicated well. We use a VPN to connect with users while working from home, ensuring our security policies are in place. This means there is little difference when staff work from home, as we can track their work. 

Verified ID is quite effective and secure when it comes to privacy and control of identity data.  

We use the solution's Permission Management, which provides excellent controls over identity permissions in Azure AD, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google Clouds. We don't have any issues with this asset.

The Permission Management feature helps to reduce our risk surface when it comes to identity permissions. 

The product could be more cost-effective. 

We've been using the solution for around four and a half years. 

The stability is excellent; we recently experienced our only Azure outage, which was a global one.

The solution is very scalable.

We never had to contact customer support, and the only time we contacted Microsoft was to renew our contract or change the provider. I provide technical support within our organization.

Positive

We didn't previously use a different solution; before Azure AD, our infrastructure was all on-prem, with only specific data and backup in the cloud.

I carried out the deployment, which was pretty straightforward; I previously did a course on Azure, so it wasn't a problem for me. The solution requires very little maintenance, and I'm the sole admin.

It took around three weeks to realize the benefits from the time of deployment, as we had to migrate many of our older systems into Azure, and the integration involved a lot of other vendors. Our email was on a Linux server, and we had a different cloud provider, so the deployment required significant collaboration with multiple parties.

As a small organization, we didn't have a deployment strategy as such, but my approach was to communicate with the other solutions' vendors to gather the required information. Then, I migrated our Linux emailing system into Azure, after which I went for the data, so it was relatively straightforward.

The solution costs us 60,000 Rupees annually, just over $700, and there are no additional costs.

We have to pay for the antivirus solution Microsoft offers with Azure AD, and they should provide it for free. It comes free with OSs, so it should be free with Azure too.

We didn't evaluate other options; we work solely with Microsoft products, so Azure AD is what we got. 

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

The admin center is very useful, but I prefer to remote into my server to do the administration that way, so I don't use it very much.

We use the solution's Verified ID and two-factor authentication, but we don't use it to onboard remote employees; all our staff are based on-premises and sometimes go off-prem, but typically, they're all in the office. We don't have remote workers as such. 

Regarding cost, I don't think the solution saved us that much, but feature-wise, it's excellent.

To others considering Azure AD, it's an excellent product. If you want stability and simplicity on your system, it's a great choice, and I definitely recommend it.

Currently, we're using IBM Security Access Manager for multi-factor authentication.

The most valuable feature of IBM Security Access Manager, at least for my company, is multi-factor authentication. That's the only feature my company is using. The solution works well and has no glitches. IBM Security Access Manager is a very good solution, so my company is still using it.

What we'd like improved in IBM Security Access Manager is its onboarding process as it's complex, particularly when onboarding new applications. We need to be very, very careful during the onboarding.

We have no issues with IBM Security Access Manager because the solution works fine, apart from the onboarding process and IBM's involvement in onboarding issues. If we need support related to the onboarding, we've noticed a pattern where support isn't available, or they don't have much experience, or we're not getting a response from them. We're facing the same issue with IBM Guardium.

As we're just focusing on the multi-factor authentication feature of IBM Security Access Manager and we didn't explore any other features, we don't have additional features to suggest for the next release of the solution, but we're in discussion about exploring ID management and access management features, but those are just possibilities because right now, we're focused on exploring our domain.

I've been working with IBM Security Access Manager for about a year, and I'm still using it.

IBM Security Access Manager is a stable solution. We have not seen any technical issues in our usage of it for one and a half years.

IBM Security Access Manager is a good and scalable solution.

The technical support for IBM Security Access Manager could be better. I'm rating support three out of five.

IBM should also look into the feedback received by the support team, and follow up with partners, especially in terms of the processes involved in a solution such as IBM Security Access Manager.

I'm unable to give information on the pricing for IBM Security Access Manager because what IBM gave me is just for me personally and it's just the starting price, while a better price offering could have been given to others.

We evaluated RSA and Auth0, and we chose IBM Security Access Manager over those two solutions because we have a portfolio of IBM products in our environment and it would be much easier to onboard them all as they are all under IBM. For example, we're also using IBM Guardium and IBM QRadar, so we've selected IBM Security Access Manager as well.

My company uses multiple solutions, and one of them is IBM Security Access Manager.

In general, I would rate IBM Security Access Manager eight out of ten because its scalability is good. As a product, it's good, for example, it has good features. It's only the support that has an issue.

I would recommend IBM Security Access Manager to users running IBM environments, otherwise, the market has many simplified solutions. If your company has IBM tools and an IBM environment, it's a must for me to recommend IBM Security Access Manager because using the solution would be easier for you. Otherwise, there's no limitation as the market is open and you'd find multiple, good solutions in the market.

My company has a partnership with IBM.