Building a new app? You need customer identity and access management (CIAM). Not just login boxes, but granular permissions for different users, support for multiple products, and of course security. But building all that stuff from scratch? It’s a huge time sink, pulling your developers away from developing your core product.
Frontegg offers enterprise-grade CIAM out of the box. It’s built to speed things up and make the user experience smooth. But, it’s not the only option. Let’s take a look at how Frontegg stacks up against some popular alternatives: WorkOS, Okta, Auth0, FusionAuth, Microsoft Entra ID, and Descope. We’ll break down the differences so you can pick the best fit for your needs.
In this article:
Why buy customer identity management?
While some companies build their own customer identity management system, they usually find it’s time-consuming and risky to build and maintain. Before we dive into specific vendors, here are some benefits of purchasing an out-of-the-box solution:
- Less to code: You don’t have to build and maintain logins, permissions, and account settings from the ground up.
- Better security: These platforms are built by security experts, so you’re less likely to have vulnerabilities.
- Happier users: Smooth logins, easy account management – it just makes things better.
- Handles growth: A good platform can scale with you as your user base grows.
- Plays nice with rules: Things like GDPR and CCPA are easier to handle.
- Focus on your thing: Your team can build your core product, not CIAM.
- Faster launch: Get your product to market quicker.
Frontegg: the whole package OOTB
Frontegg is built for modern businesses who are looking for identity management for customers. It handles everything from the first signup to managing subscriptions, all with a clean interface and tools that developers actually enjoy using. Best of all, it offers low-code options so even non-developers can pull the lever on the parts of CIAM that impact them.
What Frontegg offers:
- Logins: Social logins (Google, Facebook, etc.), passwordless options, two-factor authentication (2FA), and magic links.
- Permissions: Control who can access what with roles and specific permissions.
- Getting started fast: Create custom onboarding steps, send invites, and let users manage their profiles.
- Self-service: Users can change their settings, reset passwords, update profiles, and manage their subscriptions – all on their own with Admin Portal.
- Admin tools: A central place to manage users, roles, permissions, and all the settings.
- Security: Detailed logs for security and troubleshooting.
- Enterprise-grade essentials: Single Sign-On (SSO), connecting to existing user directories, and more.
- Ready-made UI: Pre-built login boxes, signup forms, and other bits you can just drop into your app.
- Advantages for business customers: Handles CIAM for SaaS apps that have many different customers (multi-tenancy).
Frontegg vs. WorkOS
WorkOS is all about making your SaaS “enterprise-ready,” mainly by providing easy connections for SSO. WorkOS is good at that, but Frontegg is better for more complex authentication and authorization needs. Learn more about Frontegg vs. WorkOS.
| Feature | Frontegg | WorkOS |
|---|---|---|
| What it does | Everything user management | Mostly SSO and directory syncing |
| Logins | Lots of options, including social and 2FA | Mostly relies on other SSO providers |
| Permissions | Roles and detailed permissions | Not much |
| User onboarding | Custom steps, invites | Not really a focus |
| Self-service | A whole bunch, even subscriptions | Limited |
| Admin panel | Full control panel | Just for SSO and directory sync setup |
| Pricing | Clear pricing based on usage | More geared to smaller companies |
| UI stuff | Ready-to-use, customizable UI pages | Limited OOTB apps |
| B2B2C and B2B2B | Built for it | Not really designed for it (just B2B or B2C) |
The main differences:
- More than just SSO: Frontegg handles way more than just SSO. It’s a complete solution.
- Make it your own: Frontegg lets you customize the onboarding process and the overall user experience more.
- Multiple tenants: Frontegg was built with multi-tenant apps in mind. WorkOS wasn’t.
Bottom line: WorkOS won’t scale with you once you need more than just SSO and directory sync. Frontegg can handle that. But if you need a complete CIAM platform that offers social logins, permissions, onboarding, and self-service, Frontegg is the way to go.
Frontegg vs. Okta
Okta is a big name in identity management, especially for managing internal employee identity. While Okta is a leader in the Identity and Access management (IAM) industry, Frontegg is a much better fit for apps that are used by companies’ customers (CIAM).
| Feature | Frontegg | Okta (Customer Identity) |
|---|---|---|
| Main focus | SaaS user management | Big company employee & customer access |
| For developers | Modern, API-focused, easy to use | Can be complicated, less developer-friendly |
| Speed | Faster to set up and get running | Can take longer to implement |
| Customization | Lots of control over UI and how things work | Less flexibility |
| Pricing | Clear and scales well | Geared to big companies, can be pricey for SaaS |
| Full native multitenancy? | Built for it | Needs custom work to handle it properly |
The main differences:
- Who it’s for: Okta is mostly for managing employee access within a company, while Frontegg is built for managing customers of your app.
- Developer friendliness: Frontegg is designed to be easy for developers to use, with a modern API. Okta can be more complex.
- Time to launch: Because Frontegg is focused on SaaS and has pre-built parts, it’s usually faster to get up and running.
- Cost: Frontegg’s pricing is usually better for SaaS companies, especially when you’re starting out or starting to scale.
- Multi-tenancy: Frontegg is designed for apps with lots of different customers, whereas Okta requires custom work to handle that well.
Bottom line: If you’re building an app for customers, Frontegg is a better fit—it’s purely focused on customer identity. Okta is for companies with employee access needs.
Frontegg vs. Auth0
Auth0 (which is now owned by Okta) is a popular platform for handling logins and permissions. It’s known for being developer-friendly and allowing for lots of custom code. However, Frontegg offers a more user-friendly, low-code customer identity management platform — without sacrificing advanced features. Learn more about Frontegg vs. Auth0.
| Feature | Frontegg | Auth0 |
|---|---|---|
| What it does | Out-of-the-box customer identity | Mostly logins and permissions |
| User onboarding | Custom steps, invites | Not much |
| Self-Service | A lot, including subscriptions | Just basic profile stuff |
| Admin panel | Full control panel | Focused on logins and permissions |
| Customization | Lots of control over UI and how things work | Some options, but can be tricky |
| Full native multitenancy? | Built for it | Needs custom work |
| Pricing | Clear and based on usage | Can get expensive as you grow |
- More than logins: Frontegg does more than just logins and permissions. It handles onboarding, self-service, and even subscriptions.
- Your look and feel: Frontegg gives you more control over how things look and work for your users.
- Multi-tenancy: Frontegg’s built-in support for multiple customers is a big deal for SaaS apps. Auth0 needs custom code to handle it.
- Pricing: While both have free plans, Frontegg’s pricing can be more predictable and affordable as you get more users.
Bottom line: If you need a complete CIAM platform that offers advanced out-of-the-box functionality, Frontegg is the better choice. With Auth0, developer time will be wasted on custom code, and you can forget about non-developers handling any part of the platform.
Frontegg vs. FusionAuth
FusionAuth was designed specifically for developers, so it’s very code-centric, and the UI/UX isn’t as refined. While Frontegg was initially built with developers in mind, we expanded it to cater to other stakeholders as well. Teams like InfoSec, GTM, and Product can all use Frontegg without needing to interact with code. Learn more about Frontegg vs. FusionAuth.
| Feature | Frontegg | FusionAuth |
|---|---|---|
| Where it runs | SaaS (they handle everything) | You run it yourself, or use their cloud |
| User experience | Designed for SaaS, easy to use | More developer-focused |
| User onboarding | Custom steps, invites | Basic features |
| Self-service | A lot, including subscriptions | Some options |
| Admin panel | Full control panel | Powerful, but can be complicated |
| Full native multitenancy? | Built for it | Needs custom work |
| Upkeep | Frontegg handles all updates and maintenance | You have to do updates and maintenance |
The main differences:
- Who manages it? FusionAuth gives you the option to run it on your own servers. Frontegg is fully managed, so you don’t have to worry about servers at all.
- Ease of use: Frontegg is generally easier to get started with, especially if you don’t have a dedicated identity management expert.
- Maintenance: If you use FusionAuth’s self-hosted option, you are responsible for updates, security patches, and keeping it running. Frontegg takes care of all that.
- Multi-tenancy: Frontegg’s built-in support for multiple customers is a big win for SaaS. FusionAuth requires custom work.
Bottom line: If you want to fiddle a lot with code unrelated to your core product, FusionAuth may be for you. But for a fully managed, SaaS-focused platform that’s easier to use and handles multi-tenancy out of the box, Frontegg is going to be the better option.
Frontegg vs. Microsoft Entra ID
Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure Active Directory) tacked customer identity onto its IAM platform. Frontegg, on the other hand, was built specifically for CIAM use cases — and you can feel the difference. Learn more about Frontegg vs. Entra ID.
| Feature | Frontegg | Microsoft Entra ID |
|---|---|---|
| Main focus | SaaS user management | Big company employee & customer access |
| For developers | Modern and easy to use | Can be complicated, less developer-friendly |
| Speed | Faster to set up | Can take longer |
| Customization | Lots of control over UI and how things work | Less flexibility |
| Pricing | Clear and scales well | Can be complex and pricey, especially for external users |
| Full native multitenancy? | Built for it | Needs setup, might have some limitations |
The main differences:
- Who it’s for: Like Okta, Entra ID is primarily designed for managing employees inside a company. Frontegg, on the other hand, is for managing customers of your app.
- Developer friendliness: Frontegg is built to be developer-friendly and easy to use. Entra ID can be more complex, especially for apps that serve users outside the company.
- Pricing can be a maze: Microsoft Entra ID’s external user pricing can be complicated to navigate.
- Time to launch: Frontegg’s focus on SaaS and ready-made components usually means you can get up and running faster.
- Designed for SaaS: Frontegg’s multi-tenancy support is complete and easy to use.
Bottom line: If you’re building a SaaS app for customers, Frontegg is likely a better fit – it’s more focused, easier for developers, and the pricing is usually clearer. Entra ID is a good choice if you’re already deeply invested in Microsoft’s services and mainly need to manage employee access.
Frontegg vs. Descope
Descope is a visual workflow designer for managing basic authentication. Frontegg also offers visual orchestration – but with comprehensive authentication, authorization, and security features that provide full coverage. Learn more about Frontegg vs. Descope.
| Feature | Frontegg | Descope |
|---|---|---|
| Logins | Lots of options, including passwordless | Good at passwordless |
| Permissions | Roles and detailed permissions | Roles |
| User onboarding | Customizable flows. invitations | Some customization |
| Self-service | A lot, including subscriptions | Limited |
| Full native multitenancy? | Natively built for multi-tenancy | Not natively built for multi-tenancy |
The main differences:
- More than just orchestrating logins: Frontegg handles onboarding, self-service, and much more. Descope is mainly focused on visualizing the login process.
- Customization: With Frontegg, you get more control over the onboarding experience.
- Multi-tenancy: Natively supported in Frontegg, but not in Descope.
Bottom line: If your top priority is visualizing passwordless logins, Descope is worth considering. However, if you need a complete CIAM system that covers everything from security to subscriptions, Frontegg offers a more comprehensive solution.
Making the right choice
Choosing the right customer identity platform depends on your specific needs. Here’s a quick recap to help you decide:
- Need a complete, end-to-end solution for your SaaS app? Frontegg is a strong contender.
- Only need SSO for enterprise customers? WorkOS is a good option.
- Managing employee access within a large enterprise? Okta or Microsoft Entra ID might be a better fit.
- Need a self-hosted solution and have the resources to manage it? FusionAuth is worth considering.
- Primarily focused on visualizing basic authentication? Descope is a strong contender in that area.
Frontegg is the only low-code platform that’s easy enough for non-developers to use, while providing comprehensive customer identity functionality. Want to learn how we can help simplify your complex auth challenges? Book a quick demo!
The Complete Guide to SaaS Multi-Tenant Architecture
Read the guide
