IBM Cloud App ID vs. Protectimus

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

One thing we really like is getting OTPs and payment alerts through messaging bots. Unlike SMS, it’s free for us, secure, and users like it. It’s a way to send codes and notifications without extra costs. These messages are always right there for the user, easy to access on their phone.

• 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

We’ll keep using Protectimus. Been using it for years, no real issues, it just works. Covers what we need, different setups, mgmt, logs, all that. OTP via bots is really handy and saves us money. Support’s fine, they reply when needed. Overall, it does the job, so we’ll keep it.

I gave 10 points for their solution because the GUI got a fresh update and it’s really easy to use now. The old one had some annoying limitations, but the new layout is much more intuitive. On mobile it works good too. Managing relations between tokens, users, and resources is way smoother now.

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 checked a few options before picking Protectimus. We looked at SafeNet Auth Management, Duo, and using Google Authenticator with our own backend. SafeNet felt really old-school — UI looks dated and the system’s kinda tricky to run & maintain. Duo’s solid, but it’s pricey and, more importantly, doesn’t offer full on-prem deployment. We need on-prem to handle auth for our employees on our own infra, so that was a dealbreaker. Google Authenticator is popular & free, but it’s just a client for generating OTPs — all the user mgmt, token handling, and policies would be on us.Protectimus gives all that out of the box. We can manage users & tokens centrally, set auth policies, and support multiple channels. That flexibility made it the best fit for our setup.

• 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