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
Hypersocket
Score 8.0 out of 10
N/A
Hypersocket (formerly Nervepoint) enables organizations to efficiently manage and administer end users and their access to disparate systems by empowering end users to manage their own accounts across multiple systems both on-premise and in the cloud, while allowing IT to gain control over user sprawl, cut support and gain in-depth business insight.
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 …
One Identity is a great self-service password management system, however, it is limited to just that. As it stacks against the competition, Hypersocket isn't modular, it's an all-in-one which most other systems aren't. One Identity is what we use today for self-service, and …
Nervepoint Access Manager (NAM) has the ability to deal with multiple domains. While ServiceNow at the time we looked at the solution did not (I do not know if it does now). NAM was a more polished, mature product.
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 has great flexibility with multiple domains, and the ability to sync or not sync passwords between primary and secondary accounts. I'd like to see a more granular set of permissions for the help desk role tied to an OU path rather than a whole directory. You can [create this] by defining multiple directories based on OUs but is less flexible this way.
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.
Help-Desk functionality similar to OneIdentity Self-Service Password Manager, as it provides additional users that do not require administrative access to assist with managing end-users who may have locked themselves out of HyperSocket Access Manager by forgetting their own security questions.
Too many features which become unusable and feel like the payment plans are not flexible since it's an all-in-one product with one price. It is not necessarily a bad thing as most subscription-based pricing forces a buyer to pay more for an integral service that is only available on the highest price-plan. You really do get what you pay for, but we found many of our use-case scenarios limited the product.
This isn't necessarily against the product, just a personal opinion around Multi-Factor authentication which is always primarily driven mobile devices. Not all companies or end-users have access to a multi-factor device, (or in our case, are allowed to have access to a cell phone while servicing members/clients). This creates a shortfall to allow multi-factor functionality to extend to all users unless there are hardware tokens, which can be miss placed or left out more easily as most users don't treat it the same way they would their personal smartphone.
- 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
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.
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.
One Identity is a great self-service password management system, however, it is limited to just that. As it stacks against the competition, Hypersocket isn't modular, it's an all-in-one which most other systems aren't. One Identity is what we use today for self-service, and migrated to KeePass for users centralized password manager. This probably wasn't the best move but this was all driven by cost and budgetary constraints.
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.)
As with any IT Service or Solution, the investment will always be seen as a sunk cost. The only ROI would be the time and resources spent elsewhere rather than with Password Management through an IT Department or similar department. I found that the time spent on password management was about the same, as many users who are frequently forgetting a password are also forgetting their security question & answers.
There are some positives, as it was able to help manage the bulk of their non-windows passwords or passwords related to another online service. The centralized password manager doesn't feel like a true single sign-on but for most users, it replaces a hand-written copy they have taped to a monitor.
It can help with automating some of the active directory workflows with its own user provisioning functionality. Took more time to set up than it was to manage on its own.
