IBM Cloud App ID vs. Microsoft Entra External ID

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

It is not easy to calculate the actual ROI due to the difficult quantification of all factors, but it certainly contributed a lot in protecting, monitoring and controlling access to our system. It also made it much easier to detect vulnerable external users with simple and "easy to hack" passwords they use on multiple apps.

• 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

• Single sign-on simplifies access to your apps from anywhere
• Strong authentication for your customers using their preferred identity provider.
• Integrating with social accounts such as Facebook or Google+

Incentivized

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

Incentivized

• Troubleshooting diagnostic logs effectively requires VS Code
• Group and role management requires additional effort
• The programming model (XML) could use some developer experience love

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

Each one of these alternatives has pros and cons. PingOne from Ping Identity states they "help deliver the secure and seamless customer experience to win battles for customer acquisition, retention, revenue, loyalty, and trust." While that may be the case, they did not fit our needs. We have a complex system and it did not seem to fit into our business.

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

• Having monthly active users billing was cost-effective.
• Helped with the IT support that was already managing the Azure platform of the company; this helped to manage the costs better and optimize them.

Incentivized