/ Comparison
Ratify vs. Auth0
for AI Agent Authorization.
Legacy IAM providers like Auth0, Okta, and WorkOS were built for the browser-and-human era. They rely on **bearer tokens** (which are vulnerable to replay) and **redirect-based flows** (which require a human to be present).
AI agents operate differently. They act on behalf of humans in asynchronous contexts, often hopping between multiple services and platforms. Ratify was built from the ground up for this "agent-to-agent" reality.
| Feature | Ratify | Legacy IAM (Auth0/Okta) |
|---|---|---|
| Trust Model | Cryptographic verification | Probabilistic/Bearer-based |
| Sub-delegation | Native multi-hop support | Not supported |
| Replay Defense | Challenge-response (Liveness) | Token expiration only |
| Modality | Channel-agnostic (Voice, Video, API, Physical AI) | Primarily Web/API |
| Post-Quantum | Hybrid Ed25519 + ML-DSA-65 | Classical RSA/ECDSA |
The Sub-delegation Problem
In a multi-agent workflow, your agent might hire a specialist agent to perform a task. Auth0 has no way to represent this "chain of trust." Ratify allows your agent to sign a sub-delegation certificate, passing a subset of its authority to the specialist. The verifier can then cryptographically trace the authority back to you.
Beyond the Browser
AI agents aren’t just in browsers. They are in Zoom calls, on phone lines, and in physical robots. Ratify uses a single bundle format that is small enough for SIP headers and robust enough for physical actuation. Legacy providers struggle to move beyond the HTTP cookie.