IBM Cloud App ID vs. Passly by ID Agent

Whenever you need to provide Security Provider functionality for a web based application it is well suited. You can also integrate with other directory services (e.g. SAML, Facebook, Google), but not so easily with other Auth0 based services. The customization of the login page is very intuitive, but does not allow much customisation. using the integrated Cloud Directory, you do not need to integrate with existing security providers and you can build up your own user base - including Multi-Factor Authentication settings and password policies.

Incentivized

From my experience, Kaseya made a mistake with Passly. It does not work correctly. When it does work it is very delayed causing issues for logging into the system. When Kaseya was contacted they could not find users at all. When they finally found the users they could not edit it needing them to escalate to development to fix accounts.

Incentivized

• Uses OIDC/OAuth, so the protocols for accessing user info and token management is familiar
• Clear pricing model
• API binds nicely with IBM Cloud Functions
• Billed as part of our IBM Cloud, along with our other services
• Front-end SDK for Vue, works well

Incentivized

• AuthAnvil is simple to use. Whether using an OTP code or push notifications, the application is user-friendly.
• AuthAnvil applications are easy for the end-user to install.
• AuthAnvil is readily available across multiple platforms (Windows, Android, iOS).

Incentivized

• Pricing can be heavy on small organizations.
• User interface updates could be timely.
• Cloud services hangs at times, but very rarely.

Incentivized

• Web interfaces are relatively complex, not entirely ready for end-users
• Token transfers are slightly cumbersome (e.g. moving from hard to soft-token and vice-versa)
• It remains as a separate, local AD-driven solution, independent from external, rising auth platforms (e.g. Azure)

Incentivized

Simplicity of use combined with price and low system resources.

Incentivized

They are very helpful with helping us with any issues. There are a lot of helpful guides online if you get lost. Kaseya is also good about not bugging you with notifications. Kaseya offers easy to access to support options. Overall I have not had to contact them over a lot of issues. The software rarely broke or was down for maintenance.

Incentivized

Both the software have different use cases, like IBM Cloud App ID, which will be more suitable for internal websites and apps or specific event website authentications, Auth0 can be suitable for consumer websites, e-commerce sites, where social media login is preferred more by the users. Both have their own capabilities so can be chosen according to their needs.

Incentivized

We have transitioned our Multi-Factor authentication processes to use either Authy, Duo, or Microsoft Authenticator, depending on the application use-case. We still have some clients using AuthAnvil, but it is no longer our preferred application for MFA. The other offerings in the market fulfill the same requirement with either lower or no additional cost and are easier to manage and more consistent in their performance.

Incentivized

• This has had a positive impact on security while developing our company's first major application.
• It has impacted our development process heavily by making authentication simpler than ever.
• It has helped reduce time in our development process by having easy integration and useful guides.

Incentivized

• Using AuthAnvil to log into Kaseya VSA multiple times was definitely a loss in productivity.
• AuthAnvil did provide lots of security for our products because everyone would be deterred by AuthAnvil and Kaseya VSA's labyrinth-like log in process.

Incentivized