Evidence comparison
Okta and OneLogin: what the public record shows about each
Both products turn up on identity and access management shortlists, so this page puts their two evidence records next to each other: 83 items on Okta and 22 on OneLogin, each one linked to the source it came from. It does not name a winner, and the section below explains why the numbers cannot be subtracted from one another.
Read the counts correctly
More advisories does not mean less secure. A vulnerability register records what researchers found and what the vendor disclosed. A product deployed in thousands of organisations with a mature disclosure process accumulates far more entries than a product nobody audits. A low count can mean a small install base, a young product or a vendor that publishes little, and a high count often marks the opposite.
The two counts are not measured with equal precision. An advisory is only listed against a vendor when the register ties it to one of its products by name, and vendors differ enormously in how consistently their products are named. Here that gap is 17 unattributable entries for Okta against 9 for OneLogin, which moves the advisory row far more than the products do. Both numbers are in the table so the difference is visible rather than hidden.
Treat this page as two records shown together, never as one score minus another.
The two records side by side
| Measure | Okta | OneLogin |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence items in the recordSize of the record, not a quality signal. | 83 | 22 |
| Kinds of source | 6 | 5 |
| Advisories attributed to the vendor's productsCounts scrutiny and deployment breadth. See the caution above. | 15 | 3 |
| Register entries that could not be attributedEntries naming the vendor that could not be tied to one of its products, so they are excluded from the row above. Read the two rows together: where this number is high, the registers describe that vendor's products less consistently, and the advisory count above says more about naming than about the product. | 17 | 9 |
| Of those, in the CISA known-exploited catalogueExploitation observed in the wild. The one count worth reading closely. | 0 | 0 |
| Share from government registers | 42% | 68% |
| Share the vendor cannot edit | 66% | 100% |
| Public practitioner threadsReflects community size as much as product behaviour. | 13 | 0 |
| Most recent entry | Jul 24, 2026 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| Sources last re-queried | Jul 24, 2026 | Jul 17, 2026 |
Where each record comes from
The registers and platforms behind each column, with the body that operates each one. A record resting on government registers carries different weight from one resting on the vendor's own documentation, which is why this is shown per vendor rather than merged.
Okta
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 27 | Jul 14, 2026 |
| National Vulnerability Database | NIST, United States Department of Commerce | Authoritative | 8 | Jul 14, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 10 | Jan 25, 2026 |
| Practitioner discussions | Reddit, public threads | Independent | 6 | Apr 29, 2026 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 4 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| The vendor's own documentation | Vendor website, indexed by nexalign | Vendor-controlled | 28 | Jul 24, 2026 |
OneLogin
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 9 | Sep 14, 2025 |
| National Vulnerability Database | NIST, United States Department of Commerce | Authoritative | 6 | Sep 14, 2025 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 5 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 1 | Mar 31, 2026 |
| Practitioner discussions | Reddit, public threads | Independent | 1 | Mar 12, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Only entries tied to a product of the named vendor by a structural signal are listed: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, the vendor as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. Entries that merely mention a vendor in passing are excluded from both columns.
Okta
- CVE-2025-67505highCVSS 8.4Dec 10, 2025
Okta Java Management SDK facilitates interactions with the Okta management API.
- CVE-2025-66033mediumCVSS 5.3Dec 10, 2025
Okta Java Management SDK facilitates interactions with the Okta management API.
- CVE-2025-7371mediumCVSS 6.8Jul 22, 2025
Okta On-Premises Provisioning (OPP) agents log certain user data during administrator-initiated password resets.
- CVE-2024-9875highCVSS 7.1Nov 20, 2024
Okta Privileged Access server agent (SFTD) versions 1.82.0 to 1.84.0 are affected by a privilege escalation vulnerability when the sudo command bundles feature is enabled.
- CVE-2024-9191highCVSS 7.1Nov 01, 2024
The Okta Device Access features, provided by the Okta Verify agent for Windows, provides access to the OktaDeviceAccessPipe, which enables attackers in a compromised device to retrieve…
- CVE-2024-10327highCVSS 8.1Oct 24, 2024
A vulnerability in Okta Verify for iOS versions 9.25.1 (beta) and 9.27.0 (including beta) allows push notification responses through the iOS ContextExtension feature allowing the…
OneLogin
- CVE-2025-34064criticalCVSS 9.0Jul 01, 2025
A cloud infrastructure misconfiguration in OneLogin AD Connector results in log data being sent to a hardcoded S3 bucket (onelogin-adc-logs-production) without validating bucket ownership.
- CVE-2025-34063criticalCVSS 10.0Jul 01, 2025
A cryptographic authentication bypass vulnerability exists in OneLogin AD Connector prior to 6.1.5 due to the exposure of a tenant’s SSO JWT signing key via the /api/adc/v4/configuration…
- CVE-2025-34062mediumCVSS 5.7Jul 01, 2025
An information disclosure vulnerability exists in OneLogin AD Connector versions prior to 6.1.5 via the /api/adc/v4/configuration endpoint.
What practitioners report
Public threads naming each product in their own title. Not curated for sentiment, and not counted as a verdict: a loud thread is one team's experience, not a measurement.
Okta
- r/sysadminMar 30, 2026Independent
Want to move from Okta to Entra but can't figure out how to do it without breaking everything
- r/sysadminFeb 22, 2026Independent
Why is everyone using Okta as their IDP?
- r/cybersecurityJan 25, 2026Independent
ShinyHunters claims Okta customer breaches, leaks data
- Hacker NewsJan 25, 2026Independent
ShinyHunters claims Okta customer breaches, leaks data belonging to 3 orgs
- Hacker NewsNov 18, 2025Independent
Okta's NextJS-0auth troubles
OneLogin
What neither record can tell you
The two lists below are the honest holes in each record. Everything a choice between these two actually turns on sits outside both of them.
Okta
- A further 17 register entries mention Okta without naming a product of Okta as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
- Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
OneLogin
- A further 9 register entries mention OneLogin without naming a product of OneLogin as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- No public practitioner discussion naming OneLogin was found in the indexed threads. Operational experience with this product is not represented in this record.
- Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
- Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Whether Okta is the right choice is not on this page
A record of what is true about a vendor is one half of a decision. The other half is your context: which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs, what is a hard no, and who has to sign the result off. No public page can know that, and any page that claims to rank vendors for you is guessing at it.
Typical criteria for this category
Needs your case- SSO / SAML / OIDC Integrationweight
- Privileged Access Managementweight
- Identity Governance & Access Certificationweight
- SCIM Provisioning / Lifecycle Managementweight
- Zero-Trust Architecture Supportweight
Criteria shown as examples for identity and access management. Weighting and fit are properties of your decision, not of the vendor, so they are not published here.
What DecisionOS adds on top of this record
- The vendor scored against your criteria with your weighting, not against a generic ranking
- A dealbreaker check against your hard constraints: data residency, contract terms, existing stack
- A side-by-side view of the alternatives on your shortlist, built from this same evidence pool
- This evidence mapped onto your compliance scope: NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2
- A decision memo your board can read, with the trade-offs and the reasoning on the record
Questions this page answers
Which is better, Okta or OneLogin?
This page does not answer that, and no public page can. Better exists only relative to a decision: which criteria matter, how heavily each weighs, what counts as a dealbreaker and which systems the product has to live next to. What this page gives you is the evidence on both, 83 items on Okta and 22 on OneLogin, each with its source, so the judgement rests on the record rather than on marketing.
Does Okta or OneLogin have more vulnerabilities?
Okta currently has 15 attributed advisories in this record and OneLogin has 3. That comparison is easy to misread. A vulnerability register records what researchers found and what the vendor disclosed, so a widely deployed product with an active disclosure process accumulates more entries than one nobody audits. A low count can equally mean a small install base or a vendor that publishes little. The two figures are also not measured with equal precision: an advisory only counts here when a register ties it to a named product, and 17 entries naming Okta and 9 naming OneLogin could not be tied to one. The count worth reading closely is how many entries appear in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities, which is 0 for Okta and 0 for OneLogin.
How independent is the evidence on Okta and OneLogin?
66 percent of the Okta record and 100 percent of the OneLogin record come from sources the vendor does not control: government vulnerability registers, public practitioner threads and a fixed list of recognised analysts and technology press. Material either vendor publishes about itself stays in the record and is labelled as a claim.
What does this comparison of Okta and OneLogin leave out?
Pricing, contract terms, notice periods, support commitments and the current scope of any certificate. None of those appear in a public register; they come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record. Fit with your existing stack and your compliance scope is also absent, because it is a property of your organisation rather than of a identity and access management product.
Why does nexalign publish this instead of ranking Okta and OneLogin?
Because a ranking would have to invent the buyer. Every quadrant and score sheet silently assumes a weighting that belongs to someone else's decision. nexalign publishes the record and keeps the weighting where it belongs, in DecisionOS, where it is set by the people who have to defend the outcome.
The full records
Okta: the full evidence record
83 items from 6 kinds of source
OneLogin: the full evidence record
22 items from 5 kinds of source
Two records do not make a decision
Choosing between Okta and OneLogin depends on which criteria matter to you, how heavily each one weighs, what your hard constraints are and who has to sign the result off. DecisionOS takes this same evidence pool, scores it against the criteria of your actual decision and produces a memo that holds up in front of a board and an auditor.