We performed a comparison between Auth0 and IBM Security Verify Access based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Single Sign-On (SSO) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has a lot of customization and out-of-the-box features."
"It supports identity federation, FSO and multi-tenancy."
"It is easily connected and easy to put our app in single sign-on."
"The most important thing for me is compliance. Everything that they have developed in Auth0 is already certified by many regulators such as ISO. So, we do not need to take care of that. We have the shared responsibility model to share assets with other products we are using in the cloud."
"The most valuable feature of the product is scalability."
"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'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."
"The most valuable feature is that it is simple to integrate, irrespective of your codebase."
"It's a good solution for identification and access management."
"From the integration point of view, it supports SAML, OIDC, and OAuth. For legacy applications that don't have support for SAML and other new protocols, it provides single sign-on access to end-users. From the integration compatibility point of view, it is highly capable."
"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."
"Its stability and UI are most valuable."
"I have found this solution to be really practical and when a user wants to log in, it is effortless and runs smooth."
"The tool provides a password vault, single sign-on, and multifactor authentication. It offers various authentication methods like fingerprint integration, one-time passwords, or tokens sent via email or SMS. This ensures secure access to your accounts by providing multiple authentication options."
"The solution has powerful authentification and authorization. It offers a good way to increase security."
"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 product support for multi-tenancy could be improved."
"The Management API could be improved so it's easier to get user information."
"There could be easy integration with IoT devices for the product."
"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 product could use a more flexible administration structure"
"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."
"There are a lot of areas that can be improved, but the main area is the lack of customization. You cannot easily customize anything in the product. It is not easy to tweak the functionality. It is challenging to change the out-of-the-box functionality."
"The user interface needs to be simplified, it's complex and not user-friendly."
"The user interface for users and administrators could be improved to make it easier. Automating some functions could also be beneficial."
"The solution could be classified as a hilt system. There are a lot of resources being used and it is suitable for very large enterprises or the public sector."
"Configuration could be simplified for the end-user."
"They can improve the single sign-on configuration for OIDC and OAuth. That is not very mature in this product, and they can improve it in this particular area. OIDC is a third-party integration that we do with the cloud platforms, and OAuth is an authorization mechanism for allowing a user having an account with Google or any other provider to access an application. Organizations these days are looking for just-in-time provisioning use cases, but IBM Security Access Manager is not very mature for such use cases. There are only a few applications that can be integrated, and this is where this product is lagging. However, in terms of configuration and single sign-on mechanisms, it is a great product."
"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."
Auth0 is ranked 3rd in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 14 reviews while IBM Security Verify Access is ranked 13th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 7 reviews. Auth0 is rated 8.2, while IBM Security Verify Access is rated 7.8. 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 IBM Security Verify Access writes "Supports on-prem and cloud environments, has good integration capabilities, and is easy to adopt". Auth0 is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Amazon Cognito, Frontegg, Cloudflare Access and ForgeRock, whereas IBM Security Verify Access is most compared with Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Workforce Identity, ForgeRock, F5 BIG-IP Access Policy Manager (APM) and Akamai Enterprise Application Access. See our Auth0 vs. IBM Security Verify Access 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.
