Multi-factor authentication · November 2026 Edition
Okta Verify vs Authy
Two of fourteen models named Okta Verify first on the direct prompt; zero named Authy. Okta Verify was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Authy by eight and Okta Verify carries 53 labels and Authy 13, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
First-choice share8%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate13%31%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#6A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels5313A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Okta Verify reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Microsoft Entra ID was named alongside these two in fourteen of the fourteen direct answers. Cisco Duo vs Okta Verify · Cisco Duo vs Authy · Microsoft Entra ID vs Okta Verify
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen 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 multi-factor authentication page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Okta VerifyFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAuthy
Direct203 against Okta Verify
Paraphrase201 against Okta Verify
Comparative30
Budget-constrained011 against Okta Verify · 1 against Authy
Scale-constrained10
Negative002 against Okta Verify · 3 against Authy
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Okta Verify and Authy stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | | ||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | | ||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | |||
| Grok 4.20 | | | | | | |
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | ||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | | |
| Kimi K2 | | | | | ||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | ||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | ||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
Okta Verify Authy first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Okta Verify on the left and Authy on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Okta Verify and Authy stood in it.
Okta Verify first, Authy not the choice
2 of 14 modelsAuthy was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniMicrosoft Entra ID, Okta Verify
Qwen 3.7 FlashMicrosoft Entra ID, Okta Verify alternatives: Cisco Duo, JumpCloud Protect
Neither was the first choice, one was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Claude Haiku 4.5Cisco Duo alternatives: JumpCloud Protect, Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Verify
Gemini 3.5 FlashCisco Duo alternatives: Auth0, JumpCloud Protect, Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Verify, WorkOS
Perplexity SonarCisco Duo alternatives: JumpCloud Protect, Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Verify
Mistral SmallCisco Duo, Microsoft Entra ID alternatives: Okta Verify, OneLogin MFA
Llama 4 MaverickCisco Duo alternatives: Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Verify
Kimi K2Cisco Duo alternatives: Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Verify
GPT-6 LunaMicrosoft Entra ID alternatives: Cisco Duo, Okta Verify
Muse Glimmer 30BCisco Duo alternatives: Microsoft Entra ID, Okta Verify
Neither was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Grok 4.20Cisco Duo, Microsoft Entra ID
DeepSeek V4 FlashCisco Duo alternatives: Auth0, Microsoft Entra ID
GLM 4.7 FlashXCisco Duo alternatives: Microsoft Entra ID
MiniMax M2.5Cisco Duo alternatives: Microsoft Entra ID
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
Okta Verify leads by one point.
Okta Verify1%#7 of 10Authy0%#10 of 10Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
Okta Verify leads by seventeen points.
Okta Verify17%#3 of 8Authy0%#– of 8What the models said about Okta Verify
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Avoid premium-heavy tools like Okta (can get expensive)” Grok 4.20 · budget prompt · hard negative
“Okta Verify without advanced features... These can still fall to AiTM phishing, session token theft, or prompt bombing.” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Push-based MFA (e.g., Microsoft Authenticator without number matching, Duo Push, Okta Verify) is vulnerable to” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“For enterprises with broad app portfolios: Okta Adaptive MFA, OneLogin, and Microsoft Entra ID offer the most comprehensive IAM + MFA capabilities.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · comparative prompt · first choice
“the best overall approach is Microsoft Entra ID or Okta, configured to use passkeys/FIDO2 security keys as the default MFA method” GPT-5.4 mini · direct prompt · first choice
“The Best All-Rounder: Okta Identity Cloud ... Okta is generally the industry leader.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Authy
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“TOTP authenticator apps – e.g., Google Authenticator, Authy. They are stronger than SMS/email, but the 6-digit codes can be phished in real time” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“Examples: Google Authenticator, Authy, 1Password, Microsoft Authenticator ... Key Risk: Phishing via Adversary-in-the-Middle (AitM)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Apps like Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator (in TOTP mode), or Authy generate 6-digit codes ... not phishing-resistant” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“The most cost-effective option is authenticator apps like: Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator, Authy” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“TOTP Apps: Authy, Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator. Better than SMS, but lacks the phishing resistance of hardware keys.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · alternative
“Very good: Authenticator apps (e.g., Microsoft Authenticator, Authy, or Google Authenticator) with number matching” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · alternative
Also compared
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.