Over the years, Okta has positioned itself as a leader in the identity and access management (IAM) space. It offers a broad suite of features across workforce and customer identity, including single sign-on (SSO), lifecycle management, multi-factor authentication (MFA), and API access management. Okta is often the default choice for enterprise teams looking for a centralized IAM solution that scales with organizational needs.
While Okta supports standard access control models like RBAC and integrates with thousands of applications out of the box, it can be limiting for teams that need more flexible authorization logic, prefer open-source control, or are operating on tighter budgets. Some organizations also find that Okta’s enterprise focus comes with complexity and cost that may not align with leaner, developer-first environments.
.png)
For teams that need more control over how permissions are modeled, want to streamline implementation, or are looking for pricing that fits early-stage or mid-market needs, there are several compelling alternatives on the market today.
Although Okta is seen as an industry powerhouse, there are many reasons they may not align with user and business needs. Here are some common reasons teams explore alternatives to Okta:
Okta’s pricing model is designed for large organizations and can quickly add up, especially for startups or mid-sized teams. Per-user fees, add-ons for advanced features, and enterprise-level minimums often make it cost-restrictive for smaller or budget-conscious teams.
While Okta supports basic RBAC out of the box, more complex use cases—like object-level permissions or dynamic access rules—typically require external services or custom workarounds. For teams building products where authorization is central, this can be a major limitation.
Okta’s platform is powerful, but it’s also opinionated. Integrating Okta into modern stacks or CI/CD pipelines can feel cumbersome compared to lightweight, developer-first alternatives that offer simpler SDKs and APIs.
With Okta, many parts of your identity logic live within their platform. This can make migrating away or customizing core behavior more difficult, especially for teams that want full control over how identity and access is handled.
Organizations in regulated industries or those that prioritize data sovereignty often prefer tools that can be self-hosted or offer more transparency. Okta is a closed-source, cloud-only solution—so it may not align with those requirements.
Oso is a hosted authorization service built to manage complex access control outside of your application code. Instead of embedding permission logic throughout your backend, Oso lets you define policies in one place and evaluate them via API—turning authorization into a standalone, observable service.
At its core, Oso uses a lets you express authorization logic in terms of your application'srelationship-based access model that maps users, roles, and resources. This allows, allowing for fine-grained control over who can do what. Policies are written in Polar, Oso’s purpose-built logic language, and evaluated remotely through Oso’s platform. This design gives teams a clear separation of concerns and enables easier management, auditing, and scaling of authorization logic.
What sets Oso apart is its focus on developer experience and policy observability. You can inspect decision traces, simulate policy changes, and integrate seamlessly across services—all while keeping business logic clean and maintainable.
.png)
Why is Oso better than Okta?
What is Oso’s Pricing?
Oso offers pricing tiers designed to support teams at different stages. The Developer tier is free, while the Startup tier starts at $149/month. For larger organizations or more complex needs, Oso provides custom pricing, which can include migration support and expert consultation.
Ping Identity is an enterprise-grade identity and access management platform built for organizations with complex security and compliance needs. It offers a full suite of identity services including SSO, MFA, user directories, and adaptive access—tailored for large enterprises, especially those operating in hybrid or on-prem environments.
Where Ping stands out is in its modular, flexible architecture. Teams can choose the specific services they need—whether that’s centralized authentication, authorization, identity governance, or API security—and deploy them across cloud, on-premises, or hybrid setups. This makes Ping particularly attractive for organizations navigating strict compliance frameworks or maintaining legacy infrastructure.
Ping also provides support for fine-grained access control and authorization via PingAuthorize, a policy-based engine that allows teams to define and enforce access rules using XACML or JSON-based policies. It’s more flexible than the RBAC-centric models found in many other platforms, and designed for environments where real-time decision-making and context-aware access are critical.
.png)
Pros of Ping Identity:
Cons of Ping Identity:
Pricing:
Ping Identity’s pricing is divided into two main categories: Customer Identity and Workforce Identity. Customer Identity plans start at $35k/year, while Workforce Identity pricing begins at $3/user/month.
OneLogin is a cloud-based identity and access management platform that offers SSO, user provisioning, MFA, and directory synchronization—similar to Okta, but with a stronger emphasis on simplicity and usability. It’s designed to serve both workforce and customer identity use cases, with features that help businesses manage secure access across applications, devices, and users.
OneLogin supports identity federation through SAML, OIDC, and SCIM, and integrates with thousands of pre-built applications. Its policy engine allows administrators to set access rules based on roles, locations, devices, and other contextual data. For larger organizations, OneLogin also includes features like automated user provisioning, directory sync, and adaptive authentication.
Compared to Okta, OneLogin tends to be more approachable for smaller teams while still offering the enterprise-level features larger organizations need. It’s a good fit for companies looking for a balance between functionality, simplicity, and cost.
.png)
Pros of OneLogin:
Cons of OneLogin:
Pricing:
OneLogin’s pricing is based on the identity use case. For workforce identity, plans start at $4/user/month. Customer identity pricing varies and typically requires custom quotes based on scale and requirements.
Keycloak is an open-source identity and access management solution that gives teams full control over authentication and authorization. It includes built-in support for SSO, user federation, social login, MFA, and identity brokering—all without requiring a commercial license or vendor lock-in.
Unlike Okta, which is fully cloud-based and closed-source, Keycloak can be self-hosted and fully customized. This gives teams complete control over how authentication and authorization are handled, as well as full visibility into user data and session management. It's especially popular among teams with strict security or compliance requirements, or those who want to embed IAM directly into their infrastructure.
Keycloak’s support for OpenID Connect, OAuth 2.0, and SAML makes it highly compatible with modern apps and services. While it offers role-based access control (RBAC) out of the box, teams looking for more advanced authorization models may need to build on top of it or integrate third-party tools.
.png)
Pros of Keycloak:
Cons of Keycloak:
Pricing:
Keycloak doesn’t charge per user, which makes it a cost-effective choice for apps with large or growing user bases. This pricing model is especially appealing for SaaS platforms and consumer-facing products where user volume can scale quickly.
Microsoft Entra ID (formerly Azure Active Directory) is Microsoft’s cloud-based identity and access management platform. It's deeply integrated into the Microsoft ecosystem, offering secure access, identity governance, and directory services across Microsoft 365, Azure, and thousands of third-party applications.
Entra ID supports core identity features like SSO, MFA, conditional access, user provisioning, and B2B/B2C identity scenarios. It’s designed for enterprises looking to unify identity across cloud and on-premises systems while leveraging existing investments in Microsoft infrastructure. For organizations already using Microsoft services, Entra ID provides a seamless experience with centralized policy management and compliance tools.
While it's not the most developer-focused platform, Entra ID is highly scalable and built with enterprise security and governance in mind. It’s often considered a natural fit for companies already operating in the Azure ecosystem.
.png)
Pros of Microsoft Entra ID:
Cons of Microsoft Entra ID:
Pricing:
Microsoft Entra ID is priced on the higher end compared to some competitors, but it does offer an entry-level plan starting at $6 per user per month with an annual commitment.
Okta remains a popular choice for identity and access management, especially in large enterprise environments. But depending on your team’s size, technical requirements, or budget, it may not always be the best fit.
Fortunately, there are several solid alternatives available—ranging from open-source solutions to hosted platforms focused on specific parts of the identity stack. For example, tools like Oso offer a different approach by externalizing authorization entirely, which can be useful for teams managing complex access logic.
Ultimately, the right solution depends on your architecture, priorities, and how much control you need over identity and access in your application.
