Auth0 vs Amazon Cognito
Compare Auth0 and Cognito for customer application login, identity connections, B2B needs, machine access and the cost units behind a retained service.
Which identity approach fits the brief?
Consider Auth0 when its hosted login, SDKs and selected B2C or B2B package fit the application journey. Consider Cognito when its user-pool architecture and selected AWS tier fit the same customer identity brief. Separate sign-in from application authorisation, and cost each identity type. Active customers, enterprise federation, machine tokens and messaging do not necessarily share the same allowance.
Seven differences that change the shortlist
| Buying question | Auth0 | Amazon Cognito |
|---|---|---|
| Application boundary | Managed application and customer identity platform | Managed AWS user-pool authentication; identity pools are a different component |
| Login integration | Hosted login, SDKs and supported connections | Selected user-pool login and supported SDK or API integration |
| Business customers | B2B organisation and federation features depend on package | Define the required federation and customer organisation design |
| Customisation | Check the selected extensibility and package limits | Check the tier, supported triggers and application integration |
| Free boundary | Limited Free plan with feature and active-user scope | Tier and identity-type allowances differ; Plus and M2M have different scope |
| Machine access | Specify machine-to-machine allowance and add-ons | Machine token requests have separate charging and no matching free user allowance |
| Costing | Users, organisations, connections, machine access and add-ons | Tier, identity types, tokens, messaging and optional features |
Four worked buying briefs
These are hypothetical scenarios with explicit assumptions. They do not establish equal capabilities, measured usability or a negotiated price.
| Requirement | Proposed exercise | Accept when |
|---|---|---|
| Customer flow | Complete sign-up, login and approved recovery in a test app | The correct app identity persists through the journey |
| Customer boundary | Use isolated accounts from two customer organisations | App data and role checks enforce the intended separation |
| Machine scope | Exercise one approved test API action | The app validates the intended client permission |
| Cost model | Quote the same mixed customer and machine workload | Every identity type and messaging dependency is costed |
A customer journey
Can a new test customer sign up, sign in and recover access?
Auth0: Use the retained hosted-login and SDK arrangement.
Amazon Cognito: Use the retained user-pool and SDK arrangement.
Inspect the application identity and recovery ownership after each step.
A business customer
Can one customer’s organisation use its required identity provider?
Auth0: Exercise the proposed B2B organisation and connection scope.
Amazon Cognito: Exercise the proposed federation and organisation model.
The application must still enforce its own customer and role boundary.
A machine client
Can a service obtain only the intended API permission?
Auth0: Use a non-production machine client under the proposed package.
Amazon Cognito: Use a non-production machine client under the proposed token arrangement.
Record audience, scope and the application’s permission check; no production credentials are used.
A mixed audience bill
What happens when customer activity and federation grow?
Auth0: Model customer users, organisations, connections and machines.
Amazon Cognito: Model direct/social, federated users, machine tokens and messages.
Use a stated month and retain regional or contract conditions.
Authentication is one part of application access
Define the stable application user identifier, customer organisation and permitted roles. Successful authentication establishes a sign-in result; the application still needs to decide which records and actions that identity can access.
Use separate test customer organisations and inspect the resulting app role and data access. Do not infer isolation from the identity provider’s organisation or tenant label alone.
Count users and machines separately
Auth0 B2C and B2B packages have different organisation, federation and advanced-feature boundaries. Keep the required feature set with the active-user count.
Cognito separates tiers and identity types, including a different enterprise-federation allowance and separately charged machine tokens. Include SMS, email and integration services rather than treating one free MAU figure as the complete bill.
Questions before you choose
Are Cognito user pools and identity pools the same?
No. They address different components of the identity and access architecture. Name which the application requires.
Does an active-user allowance cover all machine tokens?
No. Verify machine access separately. Cognito’s documented M2M token use does not receive the same free user allowance.
Does either service automatically implement all application permissions?
No. Define and verify the application’s customer, record and action permissions alongside authentication.
Your practical evaluation pack
Download the identity evaluation checklist (CSV)
Four proposed checks with blank evidence and owner fields. Keep the actual audience, application, package and operating arrangement with the evaluation.
Turn the comparison into your own evaluation
Use the same criteria and priorities for both products, keep unknowns unassessed and record the plan and evidence behind your ratings.
Build a Auth0 vs Amazon Cognito scorecard →Keep the assumptions with the figures
Use the date, billing cycle, units and limits with each example. Check current account terms before purchasing. Unverified prices and model costs stay unpriced.
Download the buying examples as JSON ↓Share the comparison
Use these examples when discussing the shortlist with your team.