Auth0 Platform Reviews

We use the tool for Single Sign-On (SSO) feature.

Auth0, being deployed on the cloud, provides all the functionality in a single place. We don't need to maintain machines, inventory, or procurement. It has a lot of customization and out-of-the-box features as well. We can quickly plug it into products like Active Directory or other identity broker solutions.

There could be an easy integration with IoT devices for the product.

We have been using Auth0 for four or five years.

It is a stable platform.

We have 100 users for the platform in our organization. It is very scalable.

We deployed the product on a private cloud by Auth0. Its initial setup process is user-friendly.

It is a relatively inexpensive product in the industry.

Auth0 is quite a low-cost and stable product. It provides a lot of good functionality as well. It is easy to use, manage and is very intuitive. Additionally, we can look at the logs and troubleshoot the issues.

I rate it an eight out of ten. 

Our initial use case was authentication. We didn't want to implement anything from scratch, so we needed an out-of-the-box solution. That's why we chose Auth0.

Right now, it's deployed on-premises for our development environment and on cloud. The cloud provider is AWS.

We're in the beginning stages of a project, so only 10 people are currently using this solution in my organization.

Currently, we're just using the login and sign-up features. The most valuable feature is interface application integration, but we haven't fully used it yet. We'll need it in the future for a few potential clients.

The Management API could be improved so it's easier to get user information.

I've been using Auth0 for three months.

The solution is stable.

I've had a few problems with the scalability, but it's okay overall.

Initial setup is easy. Deployment took less than an hour.

There are different price levels: B2B, B2C, and enterprise.

The basic plan is about $1,500 per month.

The basic plan is good for our requirements. In the future, we might get the enterprise plan.

I think Auth0 is worth the cost.

I would rate this solution as six out of ten. 

There are a few small problems, like with Management API. For integration purposes, it's easy to use. The solution is good for starting projects and for startups. There are a few other options for out-of-the-box solutions, like AWS or Azure AD, but we chose Auth0.

We are building a software as a service platform of products, and we wanted our customers to be able to have the same seamless experience in terms of how they log into our products. We wanted it to be secure, and we didn't want to use our own development resources in building our own solution. We wanted something that is secure and ready at the beginning of our development so that we have a very short time to market. We wanted it to be a very extensible solution and building something on our own wasn't an option for us. We wanted something that was already there. We also wanted a company that is highly committed to delivering state-of-the-art solutions for identity management.

It is deployed in the cloud. This is a software as a service. So, our workloads work in the cloud. We are mostly using AWS, but we also have Azure and GCP. We are a multi-cloud company.

I was able to pass the ISO audit smoothly. When they asked me for identity management, I just told them that it is Auth0, and it was passed. So, it has helped with compliance.

We are using Auth0 Rules during the authentication process to contact our internal APIs and extend the token that Auth0 generates with additional information that comes from our database. Auth0 Rules are pretty important because by using Auth0 Rules, we are able to shorten the development time. We didn't need to do any workarounds and so on. We could quickly deploy some code into Auth0, and our use case was covered in less than one day. We are also using Actions, which is the new thing that came after Rules and Hooks.

It provides the flexibility and the customizability that we need. I did a webinar on Auth0 in AWS, and I said that we know that the software-as-a-service products are not designed to cover 100% of use cases. They are just trying to solve 90% of them, but with Auth0's Rules engine, Actions engine, and many different features, I am able to code something around Auth0. So, I can bend the existing functionality exactly for my use case. For me, this extensibility of the software or the software as a service model is very important because then I know that I won't face any roadblocks that I cannot really go around.

It allows us to tailor the user experience flow. We find the user experience with Auth0 really great, and we could customize it exactly as per our needs. The new features that they released during the last year since we have signed the contract have been helpful. The additional hosted login page that splits the authentication into two different steps and the Auth0 organization features are really great for us.

It has saved us the development time and money by not having to deal with authentication or identity management. It has shortened the development time and saved a lot of money for us. We did a case study on Auth0, and we had a 300% return on investment in terms of money. We have also reduced the development time by about two months. We also don't need people dedicated to our own solution, which is an ongoing process of saving money.

It has helped us in setting up authentication without having to hire additional staff. We were able to do that with our own resources. We don't need to have a dedicated team that is working only on identity management.

The most important thing for me is compliance. Everything that they have developed in Auth0 is already certified by many regulators such as ISO. So, we do not need to take care of that. We have the shared responsibility model to share assets with other products we are using in the cloud.

I am very pleased with the number of features that came with Auth0. I am also very happy with how Auth0 developed since we have been using it. The number of features is really great for me, and it really covers almost all of the needs that we have when deploying it into our product.

Their documentation and SDKs are great when it comes to helping developers and application builders set up authentication. On a scale of zero to 10, I would rate it a strong eight because their documentation is really good. They are able to explain a pretty complex process of authentication and authorization in simple words. Their documentation is a really great resource of knowledge, even if you are not using Auth0. That's because the process that they have implemented is a well-known standard in the industry, and they have described it really well. Their documentation is really great for us. We had no problems with SDKs, and their SDKs are also pretty good.

There is a possibility to improve the machine-to-machine authentication flow. This part of Auth0 is not really well documented, and we could really gain some additional knowledge on that.

I have been using Auth0 for a year.

Its stability has been great. We didn't have any issues with Auth0 so far.

It has been working really well for us. We don't see any issues in terms of scalability. We are going to increase its usage because this is our business.

I really like the customer support of Auth0. I really like the people I'm working with from Auth0. They are really helpful. So, I'm very happy with them. I would rate them a nine out of 10. I didn't give a 10 because there is always room for improvement. So, a 10 is not really achievable.

We were using a different solution from a cloud provider. We switched because we felt that the solution that we were using was not really well maintained. It was working, and it was stable, but the customer experience wasn't great. The number of features that were released when we were working with that solution was close to zero.

It was very easy. We were able to onboard it with the first application in less than two weeks.

We had an implementation strategy. We started with a very simple PoC. We had a small dedicated team for that. I and my colleague researched and reviewed what is Auth0 capable of and designed a very small framework for working with Auth0. We quickly onboarded the first one of the five applications that we have. So, the first application was our battleground. We saw what is working and what is not working. We decided how we should work with Auth0 and how to shift everything that is possible in our case to Auth0. After that was done, we tested it on the small user base. We then, one by one, went with other applications.

We had done an Auth0 case study, and we had stated there that we had a 300% return of investment in terms of money.

I am pretty happy with the pricing model of Auth0. It is very clear for me. Considering our scale, the features that we are using, and additional features that we bought, we still find it great. If you split the costs for the whole year and calculate the number of people you needed to hire, it always comes out to be much lesser than what we would have spent on building our own solution.

We did some evaluation. We evaluated the solutions that are available from various cloud providers such as AWS, GCP, and Azure.

We also looked into Okta, which was its competitor at that time. Now, Okta is the owner of Auth0. At that time, we felt that Auth0 had a big advantage over Okta. Auth0 was focused on the external users' experience. Okta, for example, was more focused on internal employees logging into the systems. It was more about internal entity management. We wanted something for external users, and Auth0 was really great at that.

We went with Auth0 also because it is a company that is fully committed only to identity management. With cloud providers, this is just another service that can be maintained. So, we wanted to go with a provider that is really focused on delivering only external identity management solutions for customers like us.

To someone who says we can build authentication in-house, I would say that you can try it, but you will probably fail at it. The authentication and authorization process is really complex. You need to be really focused on that to be able to deliver a solution that is really secure and compliant with different standards. You can sleep peacefully having Auth0 deployed. With solutions that are built in-house, you will probably have some basic functions, but in my opinion, there is a vulnerability that will probably be exploited in the future. Auth0 is hiring people who are committed only to one particular area of computer science, which is authentication and authorization. They really understand the different algorithms that are behind that. So, if you do not have such engineers in-house, you will probably have a solution that is not 100% bulletproof.

For us, MFA is required every time someone logs in. Even though I like the idea of Adaptive MFA, it is not a good fit for our business model. 

Auth0 allows us to turn on or off features like social logins, MFA, or Anomaly Detection with the flip of a switch, but it is hard to assess the importance of this feature. The ability to customize the flow for authentication and authorization is very important for us, but as a company, we don't need social logins and so on. Having them enabled would be considered unprofessional in our area, and we don't need to turn them on. So, this is very important for us that things that we do not use can be turned off.

It hasn't helped to increase new-user conversion due to less sign-up or login friction because that is not in our business use case. We do not allow people to sign in to our solutions. We are business-to-business. Similarly, it has not decreased customer support tickets due to password issues because that's not applicable to us.

I would rate Auth0 an eight out of 10. I will always say that I am a really big fan of Auth0.

We use the solution for API security and management. We implement our solution with almost ten to fifteen vendors' APIs, like Salesforce and HubSpot. 

It involves generating leads, invites, adding contacts, and opportunities, mostly challenging with Salesforce integration due to limited documentation.

The solution is cost-effective and beneficial in terms of security. It enhances secure API requests, improving user management efficiency.

It offers stronger security and flexibility with API keys, which are generated on runtime. This is valuable as they are reusable and can be used for confidential applications.

There is no immediate need for improvement. However, better documentation for Salesforce integration is suggested. Multi-factor authentication could be considered for future research.

I've been working with the solution since 2017, which is approximately seven to eight years.

There have been no issues with performance or stability.

I haven't explored scalability extensively, as it hasn't been required.

We haven't escalated any questions to customer support.

Google Authenticator and Duo are used for multi-factor authentication.

The initial setup was simple and not complex, involving key or username authorization.

The solution brings security benefits and efficiency.

I recommend the solution as it provides strong security with more control over access. It supports various authentication methods.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

The most valuable feature of the product is scalability. 

The tool's price should be improved. 

I have been using the product for three years. 

I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

We use this solution for authentication and authorization, and we deploy it on cloud. For example, if you log into a particular portal, this platform will help authenticate a valid user. It supports identity federation, FSO and multi-tenancy.

The product support for multi-tenancy could be improved further, and advanced authorization capabilities could be included in the next release.

We have been using the solution for one month.

We previously used AWS Cognito but switched because it did not support many functionalities.

The initial setup was very good, and we set it up in a few hours.

We deployed the solution in-house, and one person is enough to complete the deployment.

I cannot comment on exact licensing costs because a different department handles it, but from my understanding, the solution is priced reasonably.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good, but its support for multi-tenancy could be improved further, and advanced authorization capabilities could be included in the next release.

The primary use case of this solution is to authenticate APIs, customer authentication, and business-to-business authentication.

The valuable features are that it is extremely secure and that it's developer-friendly.

In the past, there was an issue with the multi-tenant where there wasn't the ability to manage them. For example, if you have three tenants you couldn't have different managers, but that has been sorted out through the release tool.

I have been using Auth0 for three years.

This solution is stable, we have not had any issues.

It's a scalable product.

We have contacted technical support and find that they are good.

The initial setup of the solution was simple, but our requirements were complex.

The deployment time varied depending on the complexity. Some would have taken a week while others would have taken three months.

We used external consultants and consultants through Auth0 to help with the implementation.

This solution does what we want it to do. It's good and I don't see any issues.

For anyone wanting to use this solution, make sure that your developers are fully engaged. They have to know how Auth0 works and what the best way to leverage it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We were evaluating Auth0 as centralized authentication solution for our in-house development. We are searching for the best solution to take care of this because our product development is ongoing, and we want to find just the right fit. Ultimately, we did not choose Auth0.

The most valuable feature is that it is simple to integrate, irrespective of your codebase.

This is a costly solution and the price of it should be reduced.

We had been evaluating and testing Auth0 for between three and four months.

It is pretty much stable. We did not encounter any issues with respect to integration and testing.

Considering we are conducting a PoC, we are not able to fully test scalability. However, our understanding is that it scales well.

My team was in touch with their counterparts from marketing and technical resources, but because it was a PoC engagement, we did not take it further.

We did not use another SSO product before our current PoC began.

We have been evaluating multiple single sign-on solutions including Auth0 and Okta.

We run a successful proof of concept but we did not select Auth0 because their entire structure is hosted on AWS, and we are a data center company so we thought that having the backend hosted on AWS was not the right choice for us.

Had this same solution been available as a private deployment then it would have been the right fit for us.

During our exploration and evaluation, Auth0 and Okta were the top contenders from a pure authentication point. My advice for anybody who is considering such a system is to have multiple authentication systems evaluated from a technical point of view, and adopt the one which rightly suits your use case and requirements. Different products have different features sets, but what matters most is that it is purely compatible with your use case. Scalability is probably the most crucial factor.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I'm a security architect. The product is used by our customers, not by our company people directly, so I expect we would have several thousand people using this solution.

It has improved our organization by providing login authentication for a mobile app.

The most valuable feature would have to be authentication using OpenID Connect.

The product could use a more flexible administration structure in the next release. It could be improved by extending the administration model. 

There is no problem with product stability. 

We haven't had any problems with scalability. 

We've had good experience with technical support. 

We previously used a different solution which was an open-source solution that was on-prem. I can't recall the name of that, but it was an open-source tool. One of the main reasons we switched to Auth0 is that supporting an on-prem version required a certain amount of expertise and management and we didn't need to be spending money on that if we were using a software as a service provider.

The other aspect was that on-prem you have to manage the security yourself. By using a software product as a service provider in the cloud, we were able to outsource those security concerns to them. The security was their responsibility and no longer our problem.

The setup is straightforward. We've deployed it in a number of applications, some of those would have taken less than a couple of days of development and deployment, and some of them would have taken weeks. But it's dependent on the complexity of the deployment. That's not a function of Auth0, it's a function of what our digital transformation is trying to do. We used an Auth0 consultant for deployment. 

We used an Auth0 consultant for implementation and he was very good and very knowledgeable. There is nobody in our company dedicated to maintaining the system for our customers. 

There are licensing costs for this product. We have an enterprise agreement with Auth0.

We evaluated a couple of other options before choosing Auth0. We looked at Microsoft and Okta. We went with Auth0 because at the time Microsoft was about to renew, so it wasn't as easy to set up, although Microsoft is a fine product and Okta is also a fine product, at that stage, it was more aligned on-prem authentication than it was to B2C.

In terms of advice, I think that if your application is developer-driven, then Auth0 provides extremely good developer support and supports multiple development tools and strategies. That's where I believe the product comes into its own. If you're enterprise, then Okta or Microsoft are probably a better solution. It's worth watching.

I would rate this product an eight out of 10. 

I implemented the use of authentication workflow entirely on the client side (S.P.A./Single Page Application). This gives the client app a JWT and makes the infrastructure a lot easier to manage in a distributed way since I don't need to track user sessions on the servers anymore. Now, I simply use the JWT from the client on the server side to process requests and push updated profile data to a database/queue as needed and end the process without having to persist data in the web server (sessions).

We are now able to dockerize stateless containers quote easily. A typical solution for managing session data is to put it into a database, but now we don't need to do that either. Auth0 essentially acts as the database backend. However, unlike regular session management through a database, whereby one needs to touch the database every time to re-hydrate session data for every request, I only make requests to Auth0 to query for profile data when needed, thus making the application more efficient.

The documentation and getting started guide is excellent for JWT and client-side authentication. However, I think they can do a better job in explaining what you're supposed to do next in order to correctly follow an idiomatic approach to using the solution beyond simply passing a JWT token to a server and having the server check then signature to validate the token.

I've just started using it.

No issues encountered.

We used regular OAuth in conjunction with our own database for people without social accounts. This is much better because everything is wrapped and normalized through one service. It even supports non-OAuth solutions such as Active Directory and LDAP which is good.

It was extremely simple and their site even generates sample code in various languages.