Every category where a model named Descope for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Customer identity and access management	Identity and access	0%	16 of 74	8%	26	accepted challenger
Multi-factor authentication	Identity and access	0%	21 of 78	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by Cisco Duo at 42%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Descope yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Descope across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	1	0	2
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	5	0	0	5
Perplexity Sonar	2	1	0	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	1	2	1	4
Mistral Small	2	0	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	1	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	1	1	0	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	2	0	0	2
Kimi K2	0	2	0	2
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	1	3
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	0	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct13 labels1

Paraphrase11 labels1

Comparative23 labels3not counted in share

Budget-constrained6 labels1

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative7 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative65 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 7 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Descope or Stytch: Highly modern, developer-first platforms that emphasize passwordless flows” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CIAM · scale prompt · alternative

“Customer-facing B2B SaaS auth rather than internal workforce MFA | Descope or WorkOS” Perplexity Sonar · MFA · direct prompt · alternative

“Descope leads for teams that need no/low-code identity workflows, multi-tenant B2B support” Claude Haiku 4.5 · CIAM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“developer-first APIs (like Descope or Frontegg) currently offer fewer pitfalls” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CIAM · negative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“still newer and less battle‑tested for large, multi‑tenant B2B deployments” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CIAM · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

“Descope/Keycloak | Newer/niche; fewer enterprise case studies.” Grok 4.1 Fast · CIAM · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Descope, over the 65 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Descope was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Auth057 of 6520Not in the top three

WorkOS38 of 6512Not in the top three

Microsoft Entra External ID38 of 653Not in the top three

Frontegg34 of 657Not in the top three

Stytch33 of 650Not in the top three

Clerk26 of 656Not in the top three

Ping Identity25 of 652Not in the top three

Amazon Cognito24 of 650Not in the top three

LoginRadius19 of 650Not in the top three

Keycloak15 of 650Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Descope. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 55 of the 65 answers that named Descope and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

startwithidentity.com36

expertinsights.com35

descope.comYour site34

loginradius.com34

securityboulevard.com21

guideflow.com19

idsync.com17

workos.com17

ibtimes.com16

miniorange.com15

210 of the 244 domain citations in answers naming Descope came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

expertinsights.com/identity-and-access-management/top-customer-identity-and-access-managem32

descope.com/blog/post/ciam-solutions25

loginradius.com/blog/identity/top-ciam-for-small-and-medium-businesses21

guideflow.com/blog/ciam-software19

ibtimes.com/top-5-best-customer-identity-access-management-ciam-solutions-2026-380087814

worldmetrics.org/best/customer-identity-management-software13

guptadeepak.com/top-5-enterprise-ciam-platforms-in-depth-comparison12

securityboulevard.com/2026/08/top-5-enterprise-ciam-platforms-in-2026-in-depth-comparison12

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Descope's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Descope, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at descope.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.