To help ysers simplify and secure
their login experience, Authlogics Multi-Factor
Authentication (MFA) is presented as a complete and easy to deploy login solution that
offers multi-token and tokenless technology, password replacement, and a
single-sign-on solution for on-premises and Cloud applications.
MFA Benefits:
·
Passwordless and deviceless logins with pattern-based
authentication and…
N/A
Cisco Duo
Score 9.5 out of 10
N/A
Cisco Duo is a two-factor authentication system (2FA), acquired by Cisco in October 2018. It provides single sign-on (SSO) and endpoint visibility, as well as access controls and policy controlled adaptive authentication.
$3
per month per user
Pricing
Authlogics Multi-Factor Authentication
Cisco Duo
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Duo Essentials
$3
per month per user
Duo Advantage
$6
per month per user
Duo Premier
$9
per month per user
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Authlogics Multi-Factor Authentication
Cisco Duo
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
$800 per installation
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Authlogics Multi-Factor Authentication
Cisco Duo
Considered Both Products
Authlogics Multi-Factor Authentication
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Authlogics Multi-Factor Authentication
The only advantage of Google Authenticator is that it is free. Authlogics has many more features than Google Authenticator especially 1.5 MFA which is unique to it. It has official support which comes in handy when users face authentication issues or the radius servers having …
I would fully expect a competitor like Okta or any other multifactor mechanic to function pretty similarly, and I hesitate to say duos the best. I think the idea is that it's a simple concept, but it does it well. So I haven't evaluated any myself outside of duo, but I'm also …
Cisco Duo had an integrated method for handling MFA on Endpoints and Servers. This was a huge bonus. Administration and implementation seemed more efficient as well.
There are Okta has that Duo does not have, however since my environment has CISCO solutions implemented and the service that we receive from the vendor and integrator is top quality, DUO was the right choice.
We selected Cisco Secure Access by Duo due to its ability to interoperate with almost any on premise, cloud, or hybrid application or system. Duo also integrates nicely with our other security systems, including XDR. As well, Duo is a market leader and always pushing the sector …
Cisco Secure Access by Duo's ability to integrate with a wide variety of SSO applications and systems, as well as its focus on usability, make it an attractive option.
Authlogics can be used anywhere there is a need for second factor authentication. Moreover, if you care about users and want something easy for them to use then 1.5 MFA from Authlogics is a blessing. However, if you have the need the users should use their device or something they have always then this is not the ideal solution.
Cisco Duois is well suited in all kinds of scenarios where you need to ensure proper security measurements, I think. We can't just rely on our passwords only, as they can be easily stolen through phishing or data breaches thus keeping multi factor authentication is quite essential. I always prefer MFA or at least 2FA for any critical system.
Documentation is oftentimes missing key information for proper implementation. This is circumvented by reading third-party guides or contacting support for additional details.
They do not push Fail-Closed as much as I think they should. Fail-Open is fairly trivial to bypass and it should be made known to the customer during setup how much this will affect overall security.
More vendor integration is something that is always craved by administrators. There are so many third-parties to integrate with.
There are a lot of competing solutions on the market; however, Duo "just works", and there is little to no learning curve for the new members to be acclimated to it. As long as that continues I see it as the preferred option moving forward
La interfaz es intuitiva y fácil de navegar, lo que permite a los usuarios administrar sus dispositivos y acceder a las políticas sin problemas. La integración con las aplicaciones SSO y SaaS facilita aún más el proceso de acceso, mejorando la experiencia del usuario.
In the last 5+ years we've been using Duo, there may have been 1 outage that impacted us. We do receive periodic notifications of issues but, for the most part, they impact carriers or functionality that we either don't use, or do not care about.
Since it’s a reputable company, I have received technical support when needed and I trust that if anything else happens I can contact them with any issues. I haven’t experienced bad customer service and I totally feel supported while using this authentication method. No complains so far and the high rating!
Implementation was straight forward and you can isolate different scenarios in order to test new application setup or add to an existing setup. Gui interface is pretty easy to understand and follow. I had no experience with Duo and still manage to easily set up new policies and rules.
The only advantage of Google Authenticator is that it is free. Authlogics has many more features than Google Authenticator especially 1.5 MFA which is unique to it. It has official support which comes in handy when users face authentication issues or the radius servers having problems. Moreover, it can be integrated with active directory providing a central place of administration for your users.
Ultimately we ended up going with Cisco Duo because we are a Cisco shop. All of our networking infrastructure, our phones, our wireless environment is Cisco based. It made logical sense to stay with a product that we already have a line of support with. With a smaller support / tech group we depend on outside Cisco support. That support is already here for us, so we stayed with a Cisco product.
It's one of those things that only costs money in the sense of you have to convince a leadership team to spend money to save money, right? Like a compromise is far more expensive than duo paying for duo. So specifically it's really just about trying to prevent problems. And so while it costs money and we don't have a direct return on investment that we can point out immediately, I would still always advocate for it just because it keeps security. Paying for security is cheaper than getting compromised essentially.