Okta vs Microsoft Entra ID: Which Should You Choose?

If your organization already runs on Microsoft 365, Azure and Windows, Microsoft Entra ID is the cheaper and more deeply integrated choice. If you run a multi-cloud or multi-vendor stack — AWS, Google Workspace, Salesforce, Workday and dozens of SaaS tools with no single platform at the center — Okta's vendor-neutral approach and larger pre-built integration catalog generally wins out. Both platforms cover the core job of enterprise identity and access management (IAM): single sign-on (SSO), multi-factor authentication (MFA), conditional access policies and lifecycle management. The real decision comes down to what's already in your stack, how much you're willing to pay per user, and how much governance and risk-detection depth you need.

What Okta and Microsoft Entra ID actually do

Both products solve the same basic problem: making sure the right person (or machine) gets access to the right application, with the right level of verification, and nothing more. They sit in the identity and access management (IAM) category alongside single sign-on, MFA and directory services.

Okta is sold as the Okta Workforce Identity Suite — a standalone, cloud-native identity provider built to sit in front of any application, cloud or on-prem, regardless of which vendor built it. It is not tied to any single productivity suite or cloud provider, which is the core of its pitch to companies running heterogeneous tech stacks.

Microsoft Entra ID (the product formerly called Azure Active Directory) is Microsoft's cloud identity platform. It underpins sign-in for Microsoft 365, Azure, Windows and Microsoft's own security stack (Defender, Intune, Purview), and it is bundled, in various tiers, into many Microsoft 365 and Azure licensing agreements. A recent CVE affecting the product — which we covered separately — is a reminder that identity platforms, precisely because they sit in front of everything else, are high-value targets regardless of vendor.

Pricing: Okta vs Microsoft Entra ID plans compared

Pricing is where the two platforms diverge most sharply, because Microsoft's pricing is designed to reward customers who are already paying for Microsoft 365 or Azure, while Okta prices as a standalone product usable with any stack.

Two caveats worth noting. First, both companies' Okta pricing page and Microsoft's Entra pricing page state list prices only — actual enterprise contracts are frequently negotiated, and Microsoft in particular often discounts Entra licensing when bundled into a larger Microsoft 365 or Enterprise Agreement. Second, Okta's advanced governance and device-access features sit behind add-ons even on its mid tier, while Microsoft's equivalent governance capability is bundled into P2 or the Entra Suite — so a feature-for-feature price comparison needs to match tiers carefully rather than compare sticker prices alone.

Integrations and ecosystem reach

This is the clearest structural difference between the two products. Okta publishes the Okta Integration Network (OIN), which it describes as having more than 8,000 pre-built, ready-to-use app integrations — a vendor-claimed figure, though one that's easy to verify by browsing the catalog itself. Okta markets this explicitly as "the identity industry's broadest and deepest set of pre-integrated cloud apps" (Okta's own description, so treat the superlative as a vendor claim rather than an independently verified ranking).

Microsoft Entra ID's integration strength runs in a different direction: deep, first-party integration with Microsoft's own ecosystem — Microsoft 365, Azure resources, Windows device join, Intune device management, Defender and Purview — plus support for thousands of third-party SaaS apps through the Microsoft Entra application gallery. For an organization that's standardized on Microsoft infrastructure, this native integration can mean fewer configuration steps and tighter security-signal sharing between identity, device and data-loss-prevention tools than a third-party IdP can offer out of the box.

In short: Okta optimizes for breadth across any vendor's apps; Entra ID optimizes for depth inside Microsoft's own stack, with broad-but-shallower third-party coverage layered on top.

Security features: MFA, conditional access and passkeys

Both vendors have converged on similar security concepts — risk-based access, phishing-resistant authentication and continuous evaluation — but implement them under different names.

Okta's Adaptive MFA supports phishing-resistant factors including Okta FastPass, FIDO2 WebAuthn authenticators (the same open standard behind hardware security keys and passkeys), and smart cards such as PIV/CAC, alongside biometric options like Face ID and Touch ID. It evaluates device posture, network, location and user-behavior signals to decide whether to step up authentication, and layers on impossible-travel detection and Okta ThreatInsight, which automatically blocks IP addresses flagged as malicious across Okta's customer base.

Microsoft's equivalent is Conditional Access, described by Microsoft as its "Zero Trust policy engine." It evaluates signals — user/group, IP location, device state, application being accessed, and real-time risk score from Entra ID Protection — and enforces if-then decisions such as requiring MFA, requiring a compliant or hybrid-joined device, blocking legacy authentication, or requiring a password change. Conditional Access itself requires an Entra ID P1 license; risk-based Conditional Access (using real-time and calculated sign-in/user risk) requires P2, since it depends on Entra ID Protection. Microsoft also lists passwordless authentication and passkey support as part of P1, positioned as a way to "remove the passwords attackers target."

Functionally, Okta's Adaptive MFA and Microsoft's Conditional Access + ID Protection combination are answering the same question — should this specific sign-in be trusted — but Microsoft's version is more tightly wired into its own device (Intune) and cloud-app (Defender for Cloud Apps) signals, while Okta's is built to pull signals from whatever device-management and security tools a customer already has, regardless of vendor. Organizations moving away from passwords entirely may also want to compare both platforms against how passwordless authentication works more broadly, since neither vendor's marketing page gives full technical specifics on passkey rollout.

Market position and company scale

Both companies lean on analyst recognition and customer counts in their marketing, and both figures below are vendor-claimed rather than independently audited, so they're presented here as self-reported claims rather than verified facts.

• Microsoft states that "more than 720,000 organizations use Microsoft Entra ID" and cites Gartner as naming Microsoft "a nine-time Leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Access Management" (Microsoft's own citation of a Gartner report dated November 2025).
• Okta cites its own recognition as "a Leader in the 2025 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Access Management," and separately promotes a 2026 Gartner Magic Quadrant leader placement for Customer Identity and Access Management (a related but distinct product category). Okta's marketing also cites customer deployments at companies including Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Hitachi, FedEx and Mars, with usage figures (such as "100M users on one platform" for Wyndham) reported by Okta from its own customer case studies.

Neither company publishes independently audited market-share percentages for workforce IAM specifically, so treat any "market leader" framing — including the Gartner and KuppingerCole citations each vendor highlights on its own site — as the vendor's selective presentation of third-party analyst coverage, not a neutral ranking.

Why Microsoft 365 shops lean toward Entra ID

For an organization already paying for Microsoft 365 E3/E5 or an Azure Enterprise Agreement, Entra ID P1 or P2 is often the lower-friction and lower-cost path: identity, device management (Intune) and email/collaboration security share the same admin console, the same risk signals, and in many licensing bundles, the same invoice. Conditional Access policies can reference Intune device-compliance state directly, and Entra ID Protection's risk signals feed into Microsoft Defender and Purview without separate integration work. If your workforce is Windows- and Microsoft 365-centric, this native fit is hard for a third-party IdP to fully replicate without extra configuration.

Why multi-cloud and vendor-neutral shops lean toward Okta

Organizations running a heterogeneous stack — AWS or Google Cloud alongside (or instead of) Azure, Google Workspace instead of Microsoft 365, a long tail of SaaS and homegrown apps, or a policy of avoiding single-vendor lock-in — tend to prefer Okta precisely because it isn't built around any one cloud or productivity suite. Its 8,000+ catalog of pre-built integrations, vendor-neutral directory, and position as a dedicated identity specialist (rather than a module inside a larger productivity suite) make it the more natural fit when no single vendor dominates the rest of the IT environment. This is also typically the stronger fit for companies that have grown through acquisition and need to unify identity across business units running different core platforms.

Can you run both? Migration and coexistence

Many enterprises do run both, at least during a transition. Microsoft Entra ID is effectively unavoidable for any organization using Microsoft 365 or Azure, since it's the underlying directory for those services even if a third-party IdP like Okta is layered on top as the primary sign-in experience for end users. In practice, this usually means Okta federates with Entra ID (or Entra ID federates out to Okta) so that employees get one SSO experience while Microsoft's own services continue to rely on Entra ID underneath. Organizations evaluating a switch in either direction should budget real time for re-testing Conditional Access/Adaptive MFA policies, app integrations and lifecycle/provisioning workflows — these are rarely a drop-in swap, regardless of which direction the migration runs.

Bottom line: which should you choose?

There's no universal winner here — the right choice tracks your existing stack more than any single feature gap. Choose Microsoft Entra ID if your organization is substantially built on Microsoft 365, Azure and Windows, since you'll likely already be licensed for some tier of it and will get the tightest native integration with Intune, Defender and Purview. Choose Okta if you run a genuinely multi-cloud or multi-vendor environment, need the broadest third-party app catalog, or want an identity layer that's explicitly decoupled from any single cloud or productivity vendor. Either way, budget for the higher tiers (Okta Essentials/Professional, or Entra ID P2/Entra Suite) if risk-based conditional access, privileged access management or identity governance are requirements rather than nice-to-haves — both vendors gate those capabilities behind their upper pricing tiers, and both vendors' own pricing pages are the only reliable source for current numbers, since published list prices change over time.

Written bySana Qureshi

Sana Qureshi runs the security and privacy desk. She reports on actively exploited vulnerabilities, vendor patches and data breaches, and covers the password managers, VPNs and authentication tools readers use to protect themselves. Her alerts cite vendor advisories, CISA and the CVE record directly.

More from Sana QureshiAll Security & Privacy coverage