Strivacity
Last verified 2026-05-11 · Reviewed by guptadeepak
Editorial verdict
Strivacity is a modern enterprise CIAM that sits between developer-first products and the legacy enterprise tier, Journey Builder visual orchestration, consent management depth, and modern API surface, with founders carrying ForgeRock and Microsoft credibility. For mid-large enterprises that find Ping / ForgeRock pricing and complexity excessive but Auth0 insufficient on consent and orchestration, Strivacity is a credible alternative. The trade-offs are smaller customer base and no FedRAMP.
Last verified by @guptadeepak on 2026-05-11.
At a glance
- Best for
- Mid-large enterprise wanting modern CIAM with orchestration but not Ping / ForgeRock pricing
- Pricing
- enterprise-quote
- Free tier
- None
- Deployment
- cloud-saas
- SOC 2 Type II
- Yes
- Passkeys
- Native
- Self-host
- No
- Open source
- No
Funding & business
- Funding model
- Venture-backed
- Total raised
- $31.3M
- Latest round
- Series B · $20M · 2023
- Years in business
- 7 yrs
- Round led by
- SignalFire
- Profitable
- Not disclosed
CIAM founded by ex-Janrain/SailPoint leaders; $9.3M Series A (2021) and a $20M round led by SignalFire (2023).
Funding data from primary source. See also the CIAM investor landscape.
Strengths
- Modern enterprise CIAM positioned between developer-first DX and traditional enterprise platforms (Ping, ForgeRock).
- Journey Builder visual orchestration is genuinely capable and easier to onboard than DaVinci or Authentication Trees.
- Strong consent management and preference center, uncommon outside the largest enterprise incumbents.
- Founded by ForgeRock and Microsoft identity alumni, credibility in enterprise security buying.
Limitations
- Enterprise-only commercial structure with no public pricing.
- Smaller customer base than incumbent enterprise CIAM.
- No FedRAMP authorization.
- Newer than the legacy enterprise tier with corresponding maturity gap on edge-case federation.
Capability matrix
Every vendor scored on the same axes. See the methodology for criteria.
| Password authentication | Yes |
|---|---|
| Social login | Yes |
| Magic links | Yes |
| SMS OTP | Yes |
| Email OTP | Yes |
| TOTP (authenticator app) | Yes |
| Push MFA | Yes |
| WebAuthn / passkeys | Yes |
| Biometric | Yes |
| Hardware security keys | Yes |
| SAML SSO | Yes |
| OIDC SSO | Yes |
| OAuth 2.0 SSO | Yes |
| Enterprise federation | Yes |
| Passwordless-only flows | Yes |
| Adaptive MFA | Yes |
| Step-up auth | Yes |
| RBAC | Yes |
|---|---|
| ABAC | Yes |
| ReBAC | No |
| FGA engine | No |
| API authorization | Yes |
| Fine-grained permissions | Yes |
| Self-service registration | Yes |
|---|---|
| Progressive profiling | Yes |
| Self-service account | Yes |
| Bulk user import | Yes |
| Admin user search | Yes |
| Custom user metadata | Yes |
| Organizations / tenants | Yes |
| Multi-tenancy | Yes |
| REST API | Yes |
|---|---|
| GraphQL API | No |
| SDKs | js, node, react, python, go, dotnet, java |
| CLI | Yes |
| Terraform provider | Yes |
| Local emulator | No |
| Extension model | Journey Builder visual orchestration + custom hooks |
| Bot detection | Yes |
|---|---|
| Breached password detection | Yes |
| Brute-force protection | Yes |
| Anomaly detection | Yes |
| Log streams | Yes |
| Audit logs | Yes |
| GDPR data export | Yes |
| PII minimization | Yes |
| Post-quantum roadmap | No |
| MCP support | No |
|---|---|
| OAuth 2.1 | Yes |
| Dynamic client registration | Yes |
| Agent vs human token separation | No |
| Web Bot Auth | No |
| SOC 2 Type II | Yes |
|---|---|
| ISO 27001 | Yes |
| ISO 27018 | No |
| HIPAA | Yes |
| PCI DSS | No |
| GDPR | Yes |
| CCPA | Yes |
| FedRAMP | No |
| EU data residency | Yes |
| Consent management | Yes |
|---|---|
| Preference center | Yes |
| Purpose-specific consent | Yes |
| Integrates with CMPs | OneTrust |
| Multi-region deployment | Partial |
|---|---|
| Data residency control | Yes |
| Proven at high scale (1M+ MAU) | Partial |
| Password-hash import | Yes |
|---|---|
| Lazy / just-in-time migration | Yes |
| Account linking & dedup | Yes |
| Custom domains per brand | Yes |
| Per-brand theming of all flows | Yes |
| Per-brand consent partitioning | Yes |
| Deletion webhooks / cascade | Yes |
| Event streaming / webhooks | Yes |
| Documented rate limits | Yes |
Pricing
| 10,000 MAU | Quote required |
|---|---|
| 100,000 MAU | $4,500/mo |
| 500,000 MAU | $14,000/mo |
| 1,000,000 MAU | $24,000/mo |
- Per-MAU enterprise pricing typical for the segment
- Journey Builder visual orchestration included at standard tier
- Founded by ForgeRock and Microsoft alumni, enterprise-pedigree positioning
Estimates use the standard assumptions in our methodology. Always confirm with the vendor.
Best for
- Mid-large enterprise wanting modern CIAM with orchestration but not Ping / ForgeRock pricing
- Regulated B2C deployments needing consent management plus passkey orchestration
- Enterprises modernizing from legacy identity stacks
Not for
- Mid-market SaaS or startups without enterprise-quote tolerance
- Workloads requiring FedRAMP authorization
- Self-hosted deployments
Solves for
Enterprise pain points this vendor covers on the mapped capabilities. See all pain points.
- B2B multi-tenancy: the edge cases bolted-on models miss
- Identity unification and deduplication as a program
- Integration sprawl and the single customer view that wasn't scoped
- Lifecycle management: dormancy, deletion, and the cascade
- Migrating millions of users without losing them
- Multi-brand rollout: the scenario that breaks architectures
- Pricing opacity: the SSO tax and the MAU trap
- Scaling the user directory itself
- The build-vs-buy trap: identity is bigger than it looks
- The friction-versus-security dial that never stops moving
Featured in
Where Strivacity appears across CIAM Compass analysis.
FAQ
- How is Strivacity different from Ping or ForgeRock?
- Strivacity is materially newer (2019), with a more modern API surface and DX, simpler Journey Builder orchestration, and faster onboarding. The legacy incumbents have deeper federation breadth and longer track records; Strivacity wins on velocity and onboarding cost for mid-large enterprise that doesn't need legacy IdP edge cases.
- What does Strivacity cost?
- Enterprise quote-based with no public pricing. Expected positioning is below Ping / ForgeRock and above Auth0 for comparable enterprise scale. Mid-market teams should look at Auth0, Descope, or MojoAuth instead.
- Does Strivacity support B2C consumer flows?
- Yes, strong B2C support with progressive profiling, consent management, and preference center. Among the more B2C-mature platforms in the enterprise tier.
Sources
- Strivacity overviewaccessed 2026-04-22
- Strivacity documentationaccessed 2026-04-22
What Strivacity is
Strivacity launched in 2019 with founders from ForgeRock and Microsoft and a thesis that the enterprise CIAM tier needed a modern alternative, one that delivered enterprise depth (consent management, orchestration, federation) with developer-first DX and onboarding velocity. The product is cloud-only SaaS with Journey Builder as the central orchestration surface.
Where Strivacity wins
Modern API surface and DX positioned between developer-first and legacy enterprise. Journey Builder visual orchestration is genuinely capable and faster to onboard than DaVinci or Authentication Trees. Consent management and preference center depth is uncommon outside the largest enterprise incumbents. Founder credibility from ForgeRock / Microsoft eases enterprise sales conversations.
Where Strivacity hurts
Enterprise-only commercial structure with opaque pricing. Smaller customer base than incumbent enterprise CIAM. No FedRAMP authorization. Newer than the legacy tier with corresponding gaps on edge-case federation.
How Strivacity compares
The closest comparisons are Auth0 vs Strivacity, Ping Identity vs Strivacity, and Strivacity vs Descope for the modern-orchestration call. For self-hosted alternatives in the same space, WSO2 IS is the legacy OSS option.
Editorial changelog (1 entry)
Profile reviewed: capabilities, pricing, and verdict checked against current public sources.