Auth0 is an identity management platform for developers and application teams. It gives users a platform to authenticate and authorize, providing secure access to applications, devices, and users. Auth0 aims to provide the simplicity, extensibility, and expertise to scale and protect any application, for any audience. Integrate Auth0 into any app, written in any language, and any framework.
$23
per month
Google Authenticator
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
Google Authenticator is a mobile authentication app.
It was long ago , cognito was in its early days and had critical bug about email case sensitive. Okta Developer lack the separation in model we wanted ,meaning modeling our tenants to their model . we didn't want to create an App per tenant , and wanted some shared …
Firebase: Pricing is too high and the efficiency and store option is not an ROI point. Okta: Too high pricing. Lack of secure code not good for mobile application auth.
Great product and large user base, easier to integrate. We used Auth0 to take care of single sign-on from all of our clients' auth domains. After initial development to integrate Auth0 with our systems, our client onboard has been very much simplified. The SSO integration …
Auth0 is one of the best login solutions for any website or application. The pricing is more considerable than other similar software. It is easy to use and does not require much effort in deploying. However, the deployment process is not so simple for drag and drop websites or …
Auth0's documentation, framework support, large community, and overall developer experience make the cost trade-off worthwhile. Auth0's developer experience makes it significantly easier for our firm to quickly develop apps that require user accounts, even if we use an SPA or a …
Auth0 is non-evasive and does not require software download. It is user friendly, seamless, and doesn't require additional actions on the part of the user. IBM Trusteer is none of these things and is based on a technology stack that cannot scale in the same way as Auth0. We …
Auth0 allows many other functionalities than the other products, such as customization of auth flows, emails, security options, etc. The Authentication & Management APIs also allow us to easily create and modify users, roles and permissions, by automating or integrating Auth0 …
We went with Auth0 over Okta due to price concerns and the overall simplicity of Auth0. We chose Auth0 over Amazon Cognito because Cognito has very poor documentation and client library support. Auth0 offers a service that hits the sweet spot for organizations with small …
Auth0 was chosen over Keycloak mainly because of poor documentation and various challenges that came with working with an open-source application. Auth0 was polished and provided SDKs and reliable Enterprise support.
Compare to AWS cognito, Auth0 is easy to setup. The API is nice to work with and flexible. And the backend administration dashboard is very robust and easy to use. Also, the pricing is reasonable based on the subscription version and online usage. The services are well …
Auth0 was just a lighter lift to get going. As mentioned previously, their documentation was robust, easy to read, and had exactly my use-case among many others. I recently read that Okta is acquiring Auth0 - this would have been a no-brainer for me if I was Okta. Congrats to …
Auth0 came highly recommended by a friend and former colleague. I trust his judgement tremendously. Thus we started looking at and experimenting with Auth0 first. As this was immediately successful (we had the first bit up-and-running in a single day) we did not really look …
We looked at Okta before they bought Auth0. Okta is more sophisticated in terms of enterprise solutions, but was out-of-date when it came to user and developer solutions.
I was not involved in the decision to use Auth0. However, I work with many clients who use Okta and Azure as their IdPs. Auth0's documentation is by far the best, but Okta's interface is easier to navigate.
We use Google as our IdP because we use Google for our inboxes, so it …
We've previously had our own in-house solution or used an external, specific OAuth provider. Both of these were fine on the surface, but they required a lot of overhead and maintenance work that we didn't want to deal with, as this is not our code business.
Auth0 is better positioned for online services such as ours. It has transparent and affordable pricing, exceptional developer experience, and a fantastic administration console. We did not evaluate the other systems, and may still end up one day, but for now, we're very happy …
Auth0 is extremely easy to use; it is also quite affordable. After reading some blogs, documentation, and reviews, it seems to me that the authentication, authorization, and security that it offers is also superior to Microsoft Azure Active Directory and The Okta Identity …
I chose Auth0 over Amazon Cognito for the simple reason that the Auth0 documentation is 1000 times better! I honestly could never figure out how to actually do anything useful with Cognito, but perhaps their docs have gotten better, I don't know. Auth0 had me up and running …
Salesforce Field Service, LinkedIn Jobs, LinkedIn Marketing Solutions, Microsoft 365, Microsoft Powerpoint, Microsoft Excel, AutoCAD, Instagram for Business, LinkedIn Sales Navigator and LinkedIn Premium Business
There are a few things to keep in mind when using Google Authenticator. Second, it's imperative that everything be kept as simple as possible. Many customers don't understand why they're putting up MFA, therefore adding further difficulty to their daily routines is always a …
Being under the google umbrella gives a level of reassurance to our users. It seems to be cleaner and easier to use for our users. Being able to use a product from an already known vendor helps onboard new users to the software. It is clean and easy to use, all of the users …
First, Google Authenticator meets the security requirements which should be considered "table stakes". Second, simplicity is critical. Many users don' understand why they are setting up MFA (or they just don't care), and so adding additional complications to their day-to-day is …
Setup was easier and transferring between accounts is simpler in Google Authenticator when compared against Symantec VIP. The other features kind of are the same where both provide keys in offline mode and work seamlessly. Keys are refreshed every 30 seconds in both the …
For myself and my business, we have not explored any other Authenticator out there. We have had no real issues with Google Authenticator and have no plans to switch.
We were using Duo before in our environment for two-factor environment. But when it comes to availability we were always facing issues such as time-sync & app integration. After using Google Authenticator it resolved our synchronization issues as well as the third-party tool …
Google Authenticator is cost-effective & a bucket of features as compared to other available solutions in the market. Google Authenticator provides a multi-layer of security with ease of integration features.
I used Cisco Secure Access Duo in my organization but I was not happy with [the] services. It creates lots of problems so I switched to google authenticator and it is really good. I am very happy with this software. No need to search [for] another option.
Google authenticator can only run on mobile devices, which makes for a more secure authentication flow. 1Password's desktop multi-factor authentication is easier to use, but it's the same device so is a weaker form of multi-factor authentication and thus less secure.
Google Authenticator is awesome. We used LastPass in the past. In general, I don't like password saving or authenticating services because it feels like a vault that I am putting all my trust in. With Google, they have made it so easy and secure, I feel confident. I have …
Google Authenticator is only really competing against SMS two-factor. Instead of getting a text from random phone numbers all the time, you go to one app/ website to get access to any account.
In addition, we can allow our members to share the same Google account (with a master …
We are using our WhatsApp Business Account to send OTP to our users, but we can't control our users for having a WhatsApp Account. And WhatsApp API is not free too and so complicated to implement. Google Authenticator is a good alternative and cost-free to our users for getting …
LastPass is the most similar to Authenticator that we're currently using, but I honestly wouldn't say they are all that similar. Authenticator is another step up, security-wise, from password managers as far as internet safety goes.
I tried a few other apps and decided to personally go with Authy, but I usually recommend Google Authenticator for most people who just want something simple and easy to use.
I also tried Microsoft Authenticator (not available in the list above), but it didn't work as well as …
Google Authenticator is a great alternative to FortiAuthenticator for our vendors to have us use to login securely to their secure portals and FTP sites. Google Authenticator does not require a setup by the Admin in order to use it. Google Authenticator does not require …
Twilio Authy is our preferred alternative - it features a lot of the same good features, along with a nicer backup setup and a more robust security model.
CyberDuo was also looked at - but because we were already set up with Google in our organization this seemed the way to go. Again, I am a user and have no authority in that area, but Google was seamless and transitioned us right into what was needed here.
Auth0 is very well suited for situations where a JSON web token can be used for authorizing APIs, websites, and mobile devices. It's especially useful if the JWT validation can happen at a gateway layer. It's especially useful if you only need to verify the user's email address or mobile number as the passwordless login is easy to implement.
It is supported by virtually all cloud-based software applications for business. I am happy to allow users to use this in addition to other authenticators. Certainly, if your business is in the Google cloud it makes sense, but my approach to the remote/virtual work world these past couple of years has been structured flexibility. Leaving some choice up to the users for their own comfort, particularly when they are using their own devices. I cannot think of a scenario where it is less appropriate - perhaps where you run the risk of "app sprawl". I.e., where you are requiring users to handle multiple authenticators (which can happen with certain pieces of hardware) you may want to encourage consolidation into one to avoid frustration.
Easy implementation: The product is very easy to implement both from embedding it into the application and from end users using it via their smartphones.
You can use Google Authenticator to manage multiple two-factor authentication keys.
Easy to add keys options: You can scan a QR code to set up 2FA in Google Authenticator. You can also do a manual entry using the unique key provided by the application you are setting up 2FA for.
Auth0 can be somewhat limiting if you want a lot of control over the design of your authentication flow. Custom branding can be done, but it may be limited depending on how you plan to integrate.
The Auth0 API documentation has proven confusing at times; a single API endpoint's behaviour will change based on inputs and configured settings (e.g. offline_access). Consequently fields that are advertised as being returned in a response might not be there or have different values if you miss a key detail and it can be difficult to debug when this happens. All information required is available in the documentation but requires some digging.
The toggle to switch tenants feels a bit odd, it works, but I've had a few instances where I didn't realize I was on a staging tenant looking for something that was on the production tenant. Not a big deal, just something to watch out for.
It runs on only a few platforms, specifically Android, iOS, and Blackberry and in my opinion it needs to be available on every platform that is out there.
SA drawback I have noticed is that if you swap phones you have to blitz the entire app and go back and sync up all the accounts again which can be very frustrating for new users.
It can also be risky ( for some ) having all all your data centralized in one place.
- integration and ease of implementation - great over all product support specially for passkey biometric authentication -Auth0 is very reliable to use their API integration for security verification. It provides best API to integrate our website and application with Single Sign In option and two step verification option. Sales and technical teams are always there to provide support
It's as easy as opening the app and what I need it for is there. I don't have to fumble with other accounts or getting something else to open it for me. I have all the access that I need for the use of the app within seconds and I can get access to the info that I need.
There isn't a clear method to get a hold of support when trouble arises if you're on their standard plan. You can file a support ticket and they generally are responsive. I've often been able to find similar questions to the questions I've had when it comes to support in their ticket history, however, some have been closed without a satisfactory conclusion for the original poster.
I have found Google’s support to be hit or miss. There are times when they are very responsive, and I get my issue resolved quickly, and there are times where a response from them takes weeks. There is no in-between. But my support experience with this particular product is nonexistent because I have not had a problem with it yet. Hopefully, we do not have any problems with it either.
Auth0 is non-evasive and does not require software download. It is user friendly, seamless, and doesn't require additional actions on the part of the user. IBM Trusteer is none of these things and is based on a technology stack that cannot scale in the same way as Auth0. We believe Auth0 provides a superior solution and is well suited for our own technology stack.
This product doesn't ensure single-use, real-time codes. This puts our data at risk and is not as secure as Google Authenticator. I anticipate using Google Authenticator as long as we continue to use the full Google Suite for business. It helps to streamline data and accounts.
Development time has been allocated to the more core parts of our business.
We are confident in the security of our user's accounts and their data.
Auth0's login flows are customizable which means that we don't have to worry about users being confused when logging in/changing their passwords, and we didn't event have to spend that much time configuring this. (Full in-house development for login could take weeks to get right.)
I would say from my limited role in the programs deployed and just being a user, this has been a valuable tool so our ROI is high. We get security and can breathe knowing we have authentication for those who have to be on our network and we are able to protect our work.