Index › Identity and access › CIAM › Auth0 vs Frontegg

Customer identity and access management · September 2026 Edition

Auth0 vs Frontegg

Five of twelve models named Auth0 first on the direct prompt; five named Frontegg. Auth0 was named by twelve of the twelve models and Frontegg by eleven and Auth0 carries 67 labels and Frontegg 32, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Auth0

accepted challenger

Named in four categories this edition.

Frontegg

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share22%17%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate22%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#1#3A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.

Labels6732A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Auth0 reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.WorkOS was named alongside these two in seven of the twelve direct answers. Auth0 vs WorkOS · WorkOS vs Frontegg

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the customer identity and access management page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.

Auth0First choices, of twelve modelsFrontegg

Direct552 against Auth0

Paraphrase542 against Auth0

Comparative60

Budget-constrained206 against Auth0

Scale-constrained001 against Auth0

Negative103 against Auth0

Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Auth0 and Frontegg stood in it.

Both were the first choice

2 of 12 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.

Llama 4 MaverickAuth0, Frontegg, Ping Identity alternatives: Hightouch, Tealium, Twilio Segment

MiniMax M2.5Auth0, Frontegg

Auth0 first, Frontegg an alternative

3 of 12 modelsFrontegg was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.

GPT-5.4 miniAuth0 alternatives: FusionAuth, WorkOS

Mistral SmallAuth0, Ping Identity alternatives: Frontegg, Tealium

Qwen 3.7 FlashAuth0, Clerk alternatives: Microsoft Entra, SuperTokens

Frontegg first, Auth0 an alternative

3 of 12 modelsAuth0 was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.

Claude Haiku 4.5Frontegg alternatives: Stytch, Thales OneWelcome

Grok 4.1 FastFrontegg, WorkOS alternatives: Auth0, Descope, Microsoft Entra External ID

Kimi K2Frontegg alternatives: Auth0, Stytch, WorkOS

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.

Gemini 3.5 FlashWorkOS alternatives: Frontegg, PropelAuth

Perplexity SonarWorkOS alternatives: Auth0, Clerk, Frontegg

DeepSeek V4 FlashWorkOS alternatives: Auth0, Frontegg, Stytch

GLM 4.7 FlashXWorkOS alternatives: Auth0, Frontegg

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.

Small business

Auth0 leads by ten points.

Auth0#2 of 14

Frontegg#3 of 14

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Auth0 leads by six points.

Auth0#1 of 13

Frontegg#3 of 13

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Auth0 leads by forty-five points.

Auth0#1 of 14

Frontegg#8 of 14

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Auth0

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.

“Developers report massive price increases of 300% to 1,500% on renewal” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative

“it is generally not recommended for startups on a limited budget” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · hard negative

“### 1. Auth0 (Okta Customer Identity Cloud) ... Pick Auth0/Olata if developer experience and speed-to-market matter most” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice

“Offers a free tier with 25,000 monthly active users (MAUs), making it a strong choice for startups and small businesses” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice

“Auth0 and Ping Identity are the top recommendations due to their maturity, scalability, and broad feature sets” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice

What the models said about Frontegg

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“Frontegg stands out for B2B SaaS specifically: Frontegg is the fastest path for B2B SaaS teams that need to ship enterprise-grade identity features” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · first choice

“Frontegg is built specifically for B2B SaaS with multi-tenancy and self-service admin, ideal for teams that need production-ready CIAM” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“If you want to offload user interface development entirely, Frontegg is the winner.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice

Also compared

Auth0 vs WorkOS WorkOS vs Frontegg The full CIAM standing

Comparisons are drawn for the top three products in each category. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.