Agen.co enables organizations to securely expose enterprise context to internal agents, copilots, and AI workflows through an identity-aware control layer that governs access, reduces risk, and centralizes oversight.
A low-code CIAM platform for managing customer identity as you scale.
Empower your workforce with secure agents
Choose an MFA solution by first defining whose access it will protect.
A product team adding MFA to a multi-tenant SaaS application has different requirements from an IT team protecting employee access to Microsoft 365, a VPN, or on-premises infrastructure. Both need strong authentication, but they need different policy boundaries, administration models, integrations, and recovery workflows.
This guide compares ten current MFA providers by deployment fit. It also provides a practical evaluation framework for factor strength, tenant policy, recovery, adaptive controls, and proof-of-concept testing.
Checked against first-party documentation: September 22, 2026. Vendor methods, policy behavior, and plan packaging can change. Confirm every required capability and commercial dependency during your proof of concept.
Start with the identity population and policy owner rather than the longest feature list:
This is a fit comparison, not a universal ranking. The table begins with the B2B SaaS customer-identity use case that this guide is designed to evaluate, followed by broader application-authentication and workforce or hybrid platforms. A strong workforce MFA product can still be the wrong choice for customer-facing SaaS authentication, and a developer-first CIAM platform may not be the right control plane for VPN or Windows logon.
Disclosure: This comparison is published by Frontegg. Frontegg appears first because the page’s primary buying task is MFA for multi-tenant B2B SaaS—not because the providers received a universal numerical score. Verify every shortlisted product against your own requirements.
A multi-factor authentication solution verifies a user with at least two different types of authentication factor before granting access. The common factor categories are:
Two steps do not automatically create two factors. For example, a password followed by another knowledge-based question still relies on the same factor category.
Authenticator strength also varies. NIST’s current authentication guidance states that manually entered OTP methods are not phishing-resistant because the code is not bound to the authenticating session. Properly configured WebAuthn and FIDO authentication can provide phishing resistance by binding authentication to the legitimate verifier. CISA recommends aiming for phishing-resistant MFA, using controls such as number matching as an interim improvement where stronger methods are not yet available.
An MFA product therefore needs to be evaluated as more than a list of factors. The policy engine, enrollment and recovery model, administration boundaries, application integration, and evidence available after a decision are equally important. For a deeper explanation of the methods themselves, see eight types of multi-factor authentication.
These products add authentication to software used by customers, partners, members, or business accounts. They usually provide hosted or embedded login, SDKs and APIs, session handling, and user-management features.
For B2B SaaS, the key question is whether the product understands customer accounts or organizations. A vendor-level setting is not enough when each customer needs its own enforcement policy or self-service administrator.
Workforce products protect employees and contractors accessing corporate applications, cloud resources, devices, and remote-access systems. They often integrate with directories, device posture, Conditional Access, VPNs, and operating-system login.
They are normally evaluated by the IT or security team rather than embedded into the SaaS product’s customer experience.
Organizations with RADIUS, VPN, PKI, mainframe, regulated, or disconnected requirements may need software and hardware authenticators, on-premises components, and support for older protocols. A modern browser-only customer-authentication platform may not meet that requirement.
Passkeys and FIDO2 security keys can provide phishing-resistant authentication. They may be part of a broader identity platform or deployed through a workforce MFA provider. Buyers should evaluate the complete lifecycle: registration, attestation requirements, cross-device sign-in, lost-device recovery, and the weaker fallback paths that remain enabled.
Frontegg provides MFA as part of a B2B customer identity platform. Its differentiator is the policy boundary for multi-tenant SaaS: the vendor defines the initial application policy, while customer-account administrators can enforce a stricter policy through the self-service portal when those controls are enabled.
The MFA management documentation describes optional, forced, and forced-except-enterprise-SSO policies. It also documents separate configuration for multiple applications and a strictest-rule behavior when one user belongs to multiple accounts within the same application. Available methods include authenticator apps, SMS, email, security keys, and built-in WebAuthn authenticators.
Consider Frontegg when: you are building B2B SaaS and need customer-account policy, self-service administration, authentication, enterprise SSO, and user management in one customer-identity system.
Verify in a proof of concept: account and application policy precedence, customer-admin permissions, factor enrollment and recovery, remembered-device behavior, and the interaction with enterprise SSO.
Frontegg is not a replacement for a workforce tool whose main job is protecting employee VPN, desktop, or device access.
Auth0 provides MFA within a customer and application identity platform. It supports multiple factors and lets developers customize authentication behavior with Actions.
Its Adaptive MFA evaluates risk during login and requests another factor when the transaction receives a low-confidence score. The documentation also lists support and limitations by authentication flow, which is important for teams using SAML, passwordless login, native applications, or older resource-owner-password flows.
Consider Auth0 when: you need an extensible application-authentication platform and are prepared to validate the exact factor, flow, and plan combination you intend to deploy.
Verify in a proof of concept: flow-specific limitations, unenrolled-user behavior, recovery, adaptive-policy visibility, and packaging for the required factors.
Clerk provides authentication components and APIs for application developers. Its current documentation supports requiring MFA across an application and offering SMS verification, authenticator-app codes, and backup codes.
Clerk also documents a configuration in which a passkey can satisfy the application’s MFA requirement. That can simplify the sign-in flow, but the team should verify how existing instances, user verification, fallback factors, and recovery are configured.
Consider Clerk when: prebuilt authentication UI and an application-wide policy fit your product model.
Verify in a proof of concept: whether you need organization-specific policy, how users and administrators recover an account, and how custom UI handles pending MFA setup and second-factor states.
Descope lets developers compose MFA and step-up journeys using visual flows, client SDKs, or backend SDKs. Supported approaches include passkeys, TOTP, OTP, and other authentication methods, provided the combined steps represent distinct evidence.
Descope also documents a homegrown-authentication pattern for teams that want Descope to perform an additional factor while their existing system continues to issue the application session.
Consider Descope when: authentication orchestration and customizable customer flows are central requirements, or you need to add MFA to an existing identity stack.
Verify in a proof of concept: the factor combinations, claims returned after MFA, step-up behavior, tenant policy model, recovery, and ownership of the final application session.
Stytch provides API-driven authentication for consumer and B2B applications. In its B2B model, an organization can require MFA for all members or make it optional, and can restrict allowed MFA methods. The current B2B overview documents SMS OTP and TOTP flows using an intermediate session until the member completes the additional factor.
Consider Stytch when: an organization-aware B2B API and control over custom authentication UI are more important than a broad workforce-access platform.
Verify in a proof of concept: organization discovery, users who belong to multiple organizations, recovery codes, method restrictions, session conversion, and migration of existing sessions.
WorkOS AuthKit provides application authentication alongside enterprise SSO, directory sync, and user management. Its documented MFA flow centers on TOTP: AuthKit can handle first-time setup and code validation, while an API is available for a custom interface.
The current documentation says the MFA requirement does not apply to SSO users. That may be desirable when the enterprise identity provider owns MFA, but it should be an explicit architectural decision rather than an assumption.
Consider WorkOS AuthKit when: you want a relatively direct B2B authentication path and TOTP meets the application’s MFA requirement.
Verify in a proof of concept: SSO assurance, recovery, customer-organization policy needs, factor roadmap, and how the application verifies that the required authentication has occurred.
Cisco Duo is primarily suited to workforce and protected-application access, including VPN, email, web portals, cloud services, and local operating-system login. It supports platform and roaming WebAuthn authenticators, Duo Push, passcodes, hardware tokens, and other methods.
Duo’s risk-based authentication can restrict high-risk attempts to stronger factors. Policies can be applied at multiple workforce-oriented boundaries, including applications and groups, and authentication logs expose risk decisions.
Consider Duo when: the task is securing employee or contractor access across applications, devices, VPNs, and infrastructure.
Verify in a proof of concept: application coverage, secure-factor enrollment, device posture requirements, high-risk fallback, help-desk recovery, and plan-specific policy availability.
Entrust offers adaptive authentication across workforce, customer, and citizen identity use cases. Its portfolio includes cloud and on-premises deployment options, multiple authenticators, biometrics, device and behavioral signals, and risk-based policies.
Consider Entrust when: high-assurance identity, biometrics, regulated journeys, or a mix of cloud and on-premises requirements is more important than a lightweight developer-first integration.
Verify in a proof of concept: which portfolio product supplies each required capability, integration complexity, signal explainability, enrollment and recovery, regional requirements, and operational ownership.
Microsoft Entra ID is a workforce identity platform for organizations invested in Microsoft 365, Azure, Windows, and Conditional Access. Its authentication portfolio includes Microsoft Authenticator, passkeys, Windows Hello for Business, certificate-based authentication, and other methods.
Authentication strengths let administrators specify which method combinations can satisfy a Conditional Access policy for a resource.
Consider Microsoft Entra ID when: you are protecting workforce access in a Microsoft-centric environment and need Conditional Access, identity governance, and device-aware policy.
Verify in a proof of concept: license requirements, guest and federated-user behavior, registration campaigns, account recovery, break-glass access, and treatment of legacy authentication.
Thales offers a broad authentication portfolio spanning workforce and customer identities. Its options include cloud access management, software and hardware authenticators, OTP, PKI, smart cards, and FIDO methods.
That breadth is useful for organizations that need to support different assurance levels, regulated populations, or existing token and PKI investments. It also means the buyer must identify which Thales product and deployment model maps to the actual use case.
Consider Thales when: authenticator choice, hardware, PKI, hybrid infrastructure, or multiple identity populations are primary requirements.
Verify in a proof of concept: the exact product architecture, customer-versus-workforce administration, integration protocol, token lifecycle, recovery, regional availability, and commercial packaging.
Write down whether the system protects customers, B2B customer accounts, employees, contractors, administrators, devices, or a mix. This decision determines who sets policy, who performs recovery, and where identity data lives.
For a multi-tenant SaaS product, ask whether one person can belong to several customer accounts and whether each account can require a different policy. For workforce access, ask which directories, devices, networks, and applications must be protected.
Use a factor matrix rather than a checkbox that says “supports MFA.”
The strongest configured factor can be undermined by a weaker recovery path. Test both.
In a B2B SaaS application, MFA configuration can exist at several layers:
The safe model is explicit precedence. When two policies apply, the result should be predictable, documented, and testable.
Enrollment, lost-device recovery, factor reset, administrator override, and break-glass access are not support footnotes. They are alternative paths into the account.
Confirm what evidence is required, who can initiate a reset, whether other sessions remain active, what is logged, and how the user is notified. If customer administrators can reset factors for their own users, test that they cannot act outside their account boundary.
Adaptive MFA uses signals such as device, location, network, or behavior to decide whether a login needs another challenge. Step-up authentication requires fresher or stronger proof before a sensitive operation, such as changing payout details or exporting customer data.
A product may support one, both, or neither. Ask how the application invokes step-up, what claim or decision proves completion, how long that assurance lasts, and whether the decision is visible in logs. The step-up authentication guide covers that flow in more depth.
Decide what happens if the MFA service, messaging provider, risk engine, or authenticator is unavailable. The correct behavior may differ between an ordinary login and a privileged action, but it should not be accidental.
Test rate limits, retry behavior, lockout, clock drift for TOTP, delayed messages, inaccessible devices, unavailable risk signals, and the administrator path for restoring access.
The MFA best-practices guide covers rollout and operating controls. If the team is still deciding whether two steps meet its requirement, review the difference between 2FA and MFA before selecting a product.
Choose by deployment fit before comparing feature counts:
Choose the product that enforces the required assurance at the correct boundary and still gives users and administrators a safe recovery path. A long list of factors is not enough.
If you are building a multi-tenant B2B application, review Frontegg’s adaptive MFA and the MFA policy documentation to see how application and customer-account controls work together.
