{ "id": "microsoft-entra-external-id-vs-auth0", "ids": [ "microsoft-entra-external-id", "auth0" ], "title": "Microsoft Entra External ID vs Auth0: customer tenants, login and migration", "heading": "Microsoft Entra External ID vs Auth0", "kicker": "Identity and access comparison", "deck": "Compare Entra External ID and Auth0 for customer application identity, tenant or organisation design, supported login flows and migration scope.", "description": "Compare Entra External ID and Auth0 for customer application identity, tenant or organisation design, supported login flows and migration scope.", "answerHeading": "Which identity approach fits the brief?", "answer": "Consider Entra External ID when its customer external-tenant model and supported capabilities fit the application. Consider Auth0 when its login, extensibility and selected B2C or B2B package fit the same journey. Name the customer scenario before comparing features. Workforce guest collaboration, a legacy Azure AD B2C deployment and a new customer external tenant are different configurations.", "checkedAt": "2026-10-15", "researchTag": "Identity audience, lifecycle and commercial scope", "researchLimit": "Official product and commercial scope reviewed. Exercises are proposed for isolated, authorised test accounts; no production identity changes, protection rankings or measured trial outcomes are claimed.", "datasetDescription": "Seven identity buying differences, four proposed evaluation briefs and four acceptance checks for Microsoft Entra External ID vs Auth0.", "type": "workflow-buying", "rows": [ [ "Selected scenario", "Customer-facing apps in an Entra external tenant", "Customer apps under the selected Auth0 B2C or B2B package" ], [ "Workforce distinction", "Workforce guest collaboration has a different setup", "Okta Workforce Identity is a separate product" ], [ "Login flow", "Confirm the external tenant’s current supported journey", "Confirm the selected hosted-login and SDK journey" ], [ "Customer structure", "Define the external tenant and app’s customer model", "Define Auth0 organisations and app customer boundaries as required" ], [ "Extensions", "Validate supported providers, attributes and extensibility", "Validate connections, extensions and feature limits in the chosen package" ], [ "Migration", "Assess the source system and target external-tenant support", "Assess source identities, connections and the retained Auth0 migration path" ], [ "Commercial basis", "Core MAU model plus optional premium or messaging charges", "Package, active users, organisations, connections and add-ons" ] ], "scenarios": [ { "name": "A new customer", "question": "Does the sign-up flow create the right application identity?", "left": "Use the proposed external tenant and supported app integration.", "right": "Use the proposed Auth0 tenant and supported app integration.", "note": "Retain the application identifier and required profile attributes." }, { "name": "Two customer groups", "question": "Can the application enforce different customer roles?", "left": "Map identity claims into the application’s approved role model.", "right": "Map the intended organisation and identity claims into that model.", "note": "Inspect the app result rather than assuming the provider object enforces every boundary." }, { "name": "An existing user", "question": "Can an authorised sample move through the proposed migration?", "left": "Validate the source and target flow under current External ID support.", "right": "Validate the source and target flow under the selected Auth0 support.", "note": "Record identifier mapping, supported credentials or reset requirements and rollback ownership." }, { "name": "A retained feature set", "question": "What is included once any trial ends?", "left": "Confirm core, add-on, messaging and subscription-linkage scope.", "right": "Confirm B2C/B2B package, connections and advanced capability scope.", "note": "Use the same audience and required login journey." } ], "exampleTable": { "caption": "Proposed acceptance checks in a non-production application; record your own evidence.", "headers": [ "Requirement", "Proposed exercise", "Accept when" ], "rows": [ [ "Application identity", "Complete a new customer journey in isolation", "Required identifiers and attributes reconcile" ], [ "Role mapping", "Use two distinct test customer roles", "The app applies the intended permissions" ], [ "Migration fit", "Rehearse the approved source-to-target sample", "Mappings, user impact and rollback needs are documented" ], [ "Retained offer", "Quote required flows beyond the evaluation period", "Mandatory features and all charging units are explicit" ] ] }, "sections": [ { "id": "tenant", "title": "Name the customer tenant and scenario", "navLabel": "Tenant scope", "paragraphs": [ "Entra External ID covers more than one external identity context. This brief focuses on customer applications in an external tenant, not a blanket equivalence with workforce guests or legacy Azure AD B2C.", "For Auth0, choose B2C or B2B scope and define any organisation or enterprise connection requirements. The application’s own customer and role model remains part of the implementation." ] }, { "id": "migration", "title": "Treat migration as an application project", "navLabel": "Migration brief", "paragraphs": [ "Inventory user identifiers, attributes, identity providers, authentication methods, recovery, custom flows and required app claims. Confirm the target’s current support for every mandatory dependency.", "Keep a verified migration path and rollback owner with the quote. Do not assume a provider rename or standards-compatible protocol makes credential migration, identifiers or application behaviour automatic." ] } ], "faqs": [ { "question": "Is a customer external tenant the same as workforce guest collaboration?", "answer": "No. Specify the Entra External ID scenario and tenant configuration for the application." }, { "question": "Can I assume legacy Azure AD B2C behaviour is unchanged?", "answer": "No. Validate the current target features and migration path rather than treating the configurations as interchangeable." }, { "question": "Does this identify a universally cheaper provider?", "answer": "No. Cost depends on the retained features, identity population, connections, activity and additional services." } ], "sources": [ { "url": "https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/business/identity-access/microsoft-entra-external-id", "facts": "External identity scenarios, customer application context and supported integration scope." }, { "url": "https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/external-id/external-identities-pricing", "facts": "Core monthly-active-user model, free allowance and optional premium or messaging charges." }, { "url": "https://auth0.com/", "facts": "Application customer identity, hosted login, SDKs and identity connection context." }, { "url": "https://auth0.com/pricing", "facts": "Free, B2C and B2B package boundaries; organisations, enterprise connections, machine access and advanced features differ." } ], "relatedLinks": [ { "path": "/categories/identity-access-management/", "title": "Explore identity and access management" }, { "path": "/guides/workforce-vs-customer-identity/", "title": "Workforce vs customer identity: scope the audience and lifecycle" } ], "downloads": [ { "path": "/downloads/microsoft-entra-external-id-vs-auth0-evaluation.csv", "title": "Download the identity evaluation checklist (CSV)", "description": "Four proposed checks with blank evidence and owner fields. Keep the actual audience, application, package and operating arrangement with the evaluation." } ] }