Auth0 Platform Reviews

My main use case for Auth0 Platform is as an authentication service for apps that I build.

I have an app that has retail users who require a log in. My app provisions them both in my local database and creates an identity in Auth0 as well. They create their password and use that subsequently every time they want to log in.

Auth0 Platform's best features include automating the entire login stream in a secure way, providing storage for user credentials, offering a robust password reset facility that users can use by themselves without involving any of my support personnel, and providing a log of all user interactions in terms of logins, logouts, and password resets.

Auth0 Platform positively impacts my organization because, in terms of development work I do, I don't have to spend really any time at all on authentication features or password reset features or anything that Auth0 Platform automates for me.

Auth0 Platform's documentation is excellent, their support organization is excellent, their code is robust, and it's certified as secure.

I have been using Auth0 Platform off and on for about ten years.

Auth0 Platform is stable.

I have had no problems whatsoever with Auth0 Platform's scalability, but I don't really have a large number of users yet.

Auth0 Platform's customer support is excellent.

I rate the customer support a nine on a scale of one to ten.

I did not previously use a different solution.

Auth0 Platform is deployed in my organization by embedding the client SDK in my application, which is deployed to the cloud, allowing users to access my application by connecting to the cloud service and logging in.

Auth0 Platform's pricing, setup cost, and licensing are excellent, and they provide a large free tier that is beneficial to companies with applications just starting to scale their user base.

I evaluated whatever were the range of similar services available at the time before choosing Auth0 Platform, but Auth0 Platform was the best and continues to remain one of the best.

My advice for others looking into using Auth0 Platform is to familiarize themselves with the underlying protocol standards, in this case OAuth. I rate this review ten out of ten.

Public Cloud

Auth0 Platform serves as our primary authentication platform for public-facing websites, and we use it primarily for two-factor authentication.

We only use Auth0 Platform for user authentication and do not use it for API-based authentication.

We currently use Auth0 Platform to secure three applications, and our next phase is introducing multi-tenancy.

We chose Auth0 Platform for two main reasons. First is their tenant and segregation capabilities, and the second is their reputation in the industry, which made it much easier to sell our product to enterprises since they had already heard about Auth0 Platform.

The multiple options for two-factor authentication with Auth0 Platform were really easy to set up and integrate into our system. The entire process, including migration of users, took about a week and a half.

Thanks to Auth0 Platform, we are ISO 27001 certified.

Managing federated identities for our customers to onboard their own users in Auth0 Platform would be a great enhancement.

I have been working with Auth0 Platform for about eight months.

We have experienced some crashes, downtimes, and performance issues with Auth0 Platform, but it was not their fault.

Currently with Auth0 Platform, we only have one tenant, and we are planning on implementing multi-tenant architecture.

We are not using multi-tenant architecture yet with Auth0 Platform, as we are planning to use it in our next phase.

Our experience with customer service has been a mixed bag. We had a contact at Okta previously, but because we are on a subscription-based plan, we can only use the community support. Unfortunately, their hours are outside of our working hours, making it difficult to get support from them.

Negative

Our biggest issue with Auth0 Platform was the cost. From a feature perspective, they had everything we needed compared to the other options. They have the reputation within enterprises. There was another competitor that had a better developer experience, but when it came time to actually using Auth0 Platform, their developer experience was great.

Auth0 Platform was really easy to use, and I honestly do not have any complaints.

We used Auth0 Platform's own documentation and tooling for the deployment.

Explore the documentation for Auth0 Platform, as it is better than you might think. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.

Google

We are an enterprise IT services provider delivering cloud solutions to our clients. We implement Auth0 (Okta) to secure API integrations, enable SSO for client websites, and support passwordless authentication, MFA, and RBAC. It helps us standardize identity and access management across applications.

Auth0 makes it easy to secure APIs, microservices, and modern applications with a consistent identity layer. Features like SSO, MFA, and RBAC are straightforward to configure and work reliably across environments.

We have been using Auth0 for about 5–6 years. We initially deployed it in test environments and integrated it for user authentication and SSO access to client applications.

The setup was straightforward. Documentation is clear, and integration with both Azure and AWS architectures was smooth.

We evaluated Microsoft Entra ID and some custom-built authentication solutions. Auth0 was easier to integrate and more flexible for our use cases.

Auth0 works well for securing APIs, microservices, serverless, and container-based workloads. We also use it for AI and agent-based applications. It integrates well with AWS services like Lambda, API Gateway, ECS, and EKS.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

I am a reseller, and our customers primarily use Auth0 for B2B purposes. Auth0 is mainly used for their employees.

The most valuable feature of Auth0 is its customizability. It allows customers to go beyond what's out of the box and customize their experience to meet their needs. Auth0's multi-factor authentication is effective. Passkeys and threat protection are also excellent features.

The pricing should be lower. A reduction of 20-25% would be great.

I have been working with Auth0 for three years already.

There are no deployment issues. Deployment is very quick. A simple setup can be live in 15 minutes.

There are no issues with stability. I would rate stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is very scalable and meets our customers' needs. I would rate scalability a ten out of ten.

Auth0 has the best support ever. The support staff are engineers, not just frontline personnel, ensuring expert assistance. Multiple channels are available to get help.

Positive

Setting up Auth0 is very easy. On a scale from one to ten, it is a ten in terms of ease of setup.

I can recommend Auth0 and hope it becomes cheaper in the future. The tool is not just for taking money but for making users productive, allowing customization for login, branding, and revenue-driving functionalities. Overall, I rate Auth0 a ten out of ten.

Public Cloud

Other

Auth0 is used as an identity provider for our new SaaS platform to manage the identity of users.

Auth0 is cost-effective because it provides all the features we need, and it was very easy to integrate into our platform. The documentation is comprehensive, and their support team is highly helpful.

The most important feature for me was the ease of use, as it needed to be easy to integrate into my platform. Additionally, the usual features such as social media integration are beneficial.

I find it surprising that there is no access to a standard user profile. By default, the user profile does not contain the name, first name, or address, which I would expect. I have to implement these features myself if I want to include them.

Their support is excellent. I had an issue, and their response was very helpful.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward due to the ease of use of the solution.

The cost of the solution itself was cost-effective enough that I didn't even need to compare it with EntraID.

I looked into Auth0 and EntraID. I chose Auth0 due to its positive reputation.

I recommend Auth0 to others. It really fulfills my requirements.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Other

We have user management, role management, and tenant concepts for multi-tenant applications. We use organizations in Auth0. For Okta, we mostly use it for internal SSO to provision users to internal tools.

Auth0’s multifactor authentication enhances our security posture.  They are GDPR compliant, and they provide us with a way to host in multiple regions. We use a European region to be GDPR compliant. 

For performance, we can also choose different regions, like China or North America. They are also HIPAA compliant, but we don’t deal with HIPAA. They are ISO certified, so it’s easy for us to convince our security team. They manage key rotation and things like that on their end in the backend, which helps us.

Auth0 doesn’t have a great way of providing self-managed user management tools. If I have to provision my customers to manage their tenants, they don’t do it out of the box. 

We are wrapping a solution around it to make that happen. There are some marketplace plugins available, but they are not so great. We have developed our own custom solution to expose user management to our customers.

I have been using it for around seven years. I use the latest version. 

It’s highly scalable. We just have to pay more for more users.

For enterprise, I would rate technical support a nine out of ten. 

For any kind of lower starter package, I would rate the technical support somewhere around six out of ten.

So, on an average it is an eight out of ten.

Positive

Within our organization, we use only Okta. We have hooked it up to Active Directory. That’s our single sign-on here.

Okta is mostly provisioned and used through DevOps. Role management and user grouping are mostly easy. There are directional integrations as well, including Azure AD and other tools. We get out-of-the-box solutions to integrate with actionable tools that we are using.

It's straight out of the box. So, the deployment time is almost half an hour to an hour in our case.

It will probably take one day to integrate. We also use IAC for automation. Once that is done, we mostly forget about it.

We have to do user management, like provisioning the users, de-provisioning, when they leave the organization and so on.

It’s easy to integrate and deploy. 

We use the cloud solution. We don’t deploy anything. We use the cloud solution, and we have automated the configuration. That is the deployment that goes on. Like, if we are adding a new tenant and things like that, it all happens through infrastructure as code.

The general deployment and integration took us around one day. Probably one day because we requested it from the DevOps team, and they have to get in touch with someone from the tooling side, and they get it done. So we usually hear back within a day that it’s done.

The point is that we did all the heavy lifting in the initial days. After that, we hardly notice anything. It’s all working well together. The only thing is that we have to wrap up a solution for user management. Other than that, I don’t see any issues.

We don't do the maintenance. It's Auth0 that manages the maintenance. We don’t usually do anything. They have great availability SLAs. We don’t even notice if there are any updates and things like that. 

It’s definitely beneficial. If we had to develop our own and manage it, it would take years of development and maintenance. In those terms, it’s definitely beneficial.

But once you cross that barrier of being a startup and growing, and if you have to move to an enterprise solution, that’s where it becomes expensive. But at that point, I think you’ll be okay to pay anyway.

The pricing depends on the tier you are in. If you’re in enterprise support, there’s always someone who can support you. But if you’re in lower tiers or starter tiers, we have crossed that barrier anyway. 

In the initial days, if you’re not aware of how the OpenID solutions work, it’s probably hard to get started. Once you cross that barrier, it becomes easy. 

But you have to pay extra for technical support, which makes sense, but adoption might become harder for people who might not have experience with either Auth0 or Okta before.

As a developer, I would rate it at nine out of ten. That’s because it’s very flexible. Developers can easily learn the system and get used to developing on it, like configuring automation, configuring integration, and things like that. 

But, again, it’s for developers. You should know how the API integrations work and things like that. But if you are a user in general, I think I would rate it at six or seven, probably seven, because if you’re not a developer, you need to spend time exploring more. 

Also, the scoped user management for a specific customer is not available out of the box with Auth0. So that’s something which, if you are a product manager, you would definitely look at. But if you’re a developer, that’s just an opportunity to build something on top of that.

Public Cloud

Developers use the solution to build log-in and sign-up experiences. Auth0 provides an API key that is integrated with the code. We provide sign-in and sign-up instead of making our sign-up, sign-in, invite-user, and forgot-password. We buy Auth0 and integrate it; they run it on their cloud.

The solution offers simplicity of use. They have too much enterprise onboarding when you want a B2B login. The first quick start is the easiest thing. You have too many tutorials and YouTube guides to help you integrate it with your code.

It is expensive and not friendly to small developers. On the other hand, Clerk is user-friendly for smaller companies. 

Auth0 could become more easier. B2B organizations need to catch up with the price. Multi-tenancy needs to be less expensive, and the ease of use and onboarding must also be better. Three tenants are allowed for every account. They have to improve their organizational features.

I have been using Auth0 for one year. We are using the cloud version of the solution.

The product’s stability is fine.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

Our clients' products have close to 200-250 active users. It is charged based on the number of active users. It has more significant customers like Jira.

I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten.

Customer service used to be very responsive. Now, the community support is helping us for a long time. Whatever you are looking for, you will get it in the community support forum. Auth0 has community forums, help documentation, and Q&A. The user community of Auth0 is very supportive when you need help. The dedicated support forum is overwhelmed. It's becoming harder to reach someone unless you have a bigger account.

Neutral

We have used Keycloak for a very long time.

Auth0 has an SDK that calls their servers. We have to install the SDK in our codebase, and our developers must integrate it with our sign-in and sign-up pages. It takes the least amount of time compared to alternatives. It is well-documented and is the best solution in the market.

The product is expensive.

I rate the product’s pricing a seven out of ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive.

We are evaluating SuperTokens and Lock. If Auth0 becomes expensive, we can host another solution.

It is a good product if you are a B2C or B2B solution or any app or consumer product.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

We use it as an authentication platform for our customers.

With Auth0, you can stop the effort of having to keep up with the progress being made in the security and authentication world, like better protocols, better encryption, and better ways to connect with other systems. It's all managed in Auth0. At the organizational level, you stop worrying about how to connect Facebook users to your application, or how to connect with a customer's internal authentication system to log in to your systems. These were questions that, three years ago, we decided to develop answers for ourselves, but with Auth0, each integration now comes out-of-the-box, and it's only a matter of configuration.

It's a very powerful platform. It has the ability to do the usual stuff, according to modern protocols, like OIDC and OAuth 2. But the real benefit of using the platform comes from its flexibility to enhance it with rules and, now, with what they call authentication pipelines. That is the most significant feature, as it allows you to customize everything regarding the authentication and authorization process. I would rate its flexibility between a nine and 10, out of 10.

For example, one way to authenticate into our system is to log in with Google. Our service is not one that you can simply sign up for through the internet and then start using. You need to talk with one of our technical account managers, sign a contract, and then we start everything for you. So when a user logs in with Google, it means that every user on the internet can log in to the system. We needed to find a way to know if a user was already defined in our systems, and otherwise, to reject him. We wrote a simple Auth0 Rule to get the user's email from Auth0 after he authenticated, and we then use an API in our backend system to check if the user is legitimate. In this way, we filter out all those who are not our paying customers.

In addition, we like the integrations that are built into Auth0. For example, it has a built-in integration with Zendesk. It's very easy to set up new SAML and SSO integrations with our customers, as it supports all IDPs out there, like Okta and Azure, among others. 

Auth0 also has a very rich selection of social connectors that allow users to connect with their social accounts. We mostly use Google, but they support many others. In addition, their user interface is very intuitive.

Lately, it looks like they have been very responsive to customer needs since they brought out the Organizations feature in the last year, which is a very nice feature that helps customers like us to manage our customers. It's targeted at enterprise-scale solutions, allowing us to manage multiple organizations within the same tenant. We are seriously considering migrating to this feature. It's a process, but we feel that it will better support the customer model that we have in Kenshoo. We also need to be able to support customized login screens with different company logos. All of that is supported by Auth0, so this probably would be a much more important feature for us than the rules themselves.

The UI could be improved in terms of saving last filters in several screens, faster search and filter options. (not everyone remember the regex syntax by hurt)

I've been using Auth0 for approximately seven years.

An important feature is the very good availability, the high availability. In the last three years, we have only faced one major outage in production.

For us, scalability is less relevant. Our service is not characterized by millions of users. It's not like Snapchat or Instagram where you need to deal with a massive number of users. In our case, there are a couple of dozen users per customer. We have about 2,000 active users per month, meaning that a huge user base is not the nature of our business. As a result, I can't really say anything about Auth0's scalability.

I do believe that they are prepared for a much larger scale than ours. That's the feeling I get from my experience with the platform.

When we faced problems with Cognito, we opened a ticket with Amazon and the response was horrible. Interacting with Amazon is really bad, especially if you have a problem and you need a fast response. And after a couple of tries, we moved to Auth0. 

With Auth0 you pay more than you do for Cognito, but you also get premium support. That means that you get a reply according to the severity of the ticket that you open, and that reply comes very quickly. Even for normal severity tickets that I have opened, I have always received a response on the same day. And generally, they have been very satisfactory responses. 

The only exception is when it comes to the features that we lack, but that is not something that support can help you with. That is more the type of topic you take to the product management team, and I respect that. I don't expect support to give me an answer or  a solution for everything.

We also have a quarterly talk with them where we can raise any issues or feature requests we have. The support we get from Auth0 is one of the reasons we went with them and one of the reasons that we stay with them.

Positive

We had developed something like this in-house some six years ago. Over time, we identified that it was a problem for us to chase the requirements and the changes needed to support more modern authentications, like SAML integrations, multifactor authentications, and other advanced security protocols. So we decided to try to find a vendor that would provide this for us.

The initial setup and deployment of Auth0 was pretty straightforward. But to be honest, we are only using 40 to 50 percent of the features they provide. And when we started, we were only using about 20 percent of the features, only the authentication part of it. Our use of it was fairly simple. 

We initially started down this path with Cognito from Amazon. We wrote the whole integration with Cognito and, about two months into that integration, we found a critical issue that we couldn't live with. We didn't get a decent answer from Amazon about it, so we decided to move on to another vendor.

Auth0, obviously, didn't have that issue. The bottom line is that it took us something like two or three weeks to migrate the whole thing from Cognito to Auth0. So in terms of the setup, that was pretty fast. Even migrating from an existing, competitive service, another IDP, was not that complicated. Again, it depends on how many of the features you are going to use. We decided not to go with features that couple us to the vendor so that we would not be locked in. That is what allowed us to migrate to Auth0 in two weeks.

We haven't calculated how much development we have saved by going with Auth0 and whether that justifies the cost of our three-year contract with them. My gut feeling is that it has been worth it, but it's on the edge. I would expect some more flexibility on the licensing, but all in all, I think it was worth it, not having to develop this in-house.

We haven't measured whether we have seen a decrease in customer support tickets due to fewer password issues, but my sense is that maybe there has been a small decrease because the flow is standardized. In addition, we are no longer responsible for sending emails when issues arise or for making sure the email server is up and running, et cetera.

Pricing of Auth0 is a pain point. Their pricing model is very confusing, at least for an enterprise. I don't like their pricing model. I think it's too aggressive. It's not very cheap for a service that only does authentication. There are some cheaper services, and we find the negotiations with them to be pretty tough.

One of the benefits of Auth0 is the SAML integration with SSO and other IDPs but it is priced very high. I would expect this ability to be included, because we pay them good money, and not priced the way it is priced today. This is one of the areas where we are not happy with Auth0.

We chose Auth0 after we did some research into other candidates. We looked into Cognito by Amazon because it was the cheapest.

We also looked at Okta, and although this might have changed in the last three years, at that time Okta didn't have a clear strategy to support a large volume of customers. It looked like they were more focused on enterprises and their pricing model did not work with the needs of a customer-facing authentication system. Today they have an offering for that, but three years ago it wasn't like that. 

We also looked at some on-premises solutions, like Shibboleth, but we didn't seriously consider them.

We could manage without Auth0 Rules. We built an architecture in which all the communication to and from Auth0 is centralized in a single service, within our company. We could add this business logic to our service and have the same functionality. But the fact that it's available for us in Auth0 means we don't need to change our code or our service to support it, and that makes things a little bit more convenient. On a scale of one to 10, the importance of Auth0 Rules for us would be a eight.

The biggest lesson I have learned from using Auth0 is that when a company does something very well, you are probably better off using their service instead of trying to do it yourself. Doing it on your own requires investing in the development and the maintenance of it. Also, things change over time and you have to keep up. The policy in our company is that whenever a company does something very well, and it is not our core business, and the price is reasonable, we might want to pay them to externalize that product or service.

Public Cloud

Other

There are indeed areas where the product could improve. For instance, Okta offers various application configurations, enabling access management, which the tool could consider implementing. Additionally, it lacks a third-party application for provisioning, a feature that Okta provides.

The tool's MFA is not as good as Microsoft Authenticator or Okta. It relies on email-based MFA, where it sends a code for verification. However, it lacks mobile apps for MFA like Microsoft Authenticator or Okta's mobile client.

It is very scalable because it provides a new environment for companies based on their number of users and other factors. The tool can take a lot of users.

I haven't used the tool's technical support yet, but it has good documentation and an online community for support. 

The solution's deployment is easy. 

The tool is cheaper compared to competing solutions. Those alternatives tended to be more expensive. Consequently, Okta purchased it because it was considerably cheaper. The solution even offered some free services while still providing excellent functionality.

However, I'm unsure about the current pricing structure since Okta acquired it. Okta aims to make money, and it has faced security issues in the past.

The tool's universal login feature impacted user experience mostly in the social login aspect. This includes accessing platforms like Facebook or WhatsApp using a Gmail account, which has become standard and is no longer seen as rocket science. When you log in, the company generates an SSO token, often from Azure AD. I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution for B2C connection between our customers on the mobile web.

It is easily connected and easy to put our app in single sign-on. For example, Auth0 is easy to bring connections for mobile devices and has good documentation.

Today we use home basic authentication and authorization, and we would like to move away from cloud and use some kind of IDP to improve authentication and authorization for our customers. So, for example, we can use the social logging feature in Auth0 to improve the customer experience.

The price modelling is a bit confusing on the site and can be costly. So if you use one measure like active user format, you need to talk to the support from Auth0 to check the price.

We have been using this solution for about two months. We are using the latest version. It is currently deployed on private cloud.

It is stable according to the documentation and support we have from Auth0. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

We have 50 users using Auth0 and plan to increase the number of customers.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten. It is very good.

The initial setup was easy, and I rate it a ten out of ten. Our company uses Terraform to build up infrastructure from AWS, and we used a partner to build the product. We needed around five people for deployment, and they were mainly engineers and senior developers.

The pricing is very high, so I rate it a four out of ten. To be in auto-production, we need other add-ons and extras that can be used for motor factory authentication. So for our product, we need to have multifactor authentication and pay for it.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. I recommend architects and engineers check and verify how many users they need for some time, like a month, six months or even a year. With this approach, you can check the price and costs from Auth0 support and try to balance the costs and features we would like to have.