Google Authenticator is a mobile authentication app.
N/A
Rublon
Score 8.0 out of 10
Mid-Size Companies (51-1,000 employees)
Rublon enables workforces to securely access an organization's networks, servers and applications. With it, users can protect data via multi-factor authentication, and comply with data protection regulations like GDPR. The vendor says Rublon can be deployed organization-wide, enabling MFA for all cloud apps, VPNs, servers, workstations, internal as well as on-premise apps.
$0
up to 1 user
Pricing
Google Authenticator
Rublon
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Free
$0
up to 1 user
Business
$1
per user
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Authenticator
Rublon
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
Optional
Additional Details
—
The minimum number of user licenses that can be purchased for Rublon Business is 30.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Google Authenticator
Rublon
Considered Both Products
Google Authenticator
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Google Authenticator
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.
A user communications neighbor serves as an immediate access gate to all applications to which the appropriate permission has been provided. The end user will simply have to have a single effectively secure signal. we get the authentication required to be able to verify a user. …
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.
The risk of interception or manipulation by hackers is reduced. It manages to be combined with other means of authentication, they allow the developer's software to be completed with the AMF software. The application tests the user's rights and links him to its services and data. The authentication of the interested party is one of the many keys to this process.
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.
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.
This mechanism certainly allows to protect a work site, but it can be expensive from an application point of view.
It is unavoidable to precisely verify the user at the launch of the workstation and/or at the connection to its application using the measures of the security policy and also to show that the authentication procedure is correctly applied.
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.
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.
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.
A user communications neighbor serves as an immediate access gate to all applications to which the appropriate permission has been provided. The end user will simply have to have a single effectively secure signal. we get the authentication required to be able to verify a user. This provides greater fixity, speed and also efficiency of the connection.
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.