Castle vs. IBM Cloud App 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

• 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

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

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

• 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