Having implemented both solutions across multiple QMS platforms including Trackwise, let me provide a comprehensive comparison addressing your specific focus areas:
Multi-tenant Supplier Identity Federation:
This is where the platforms diverge significantly. Azure AD’s B2B collaboration model works exceptionally well when suppliers already have Azure AD tenants - they authenticate against their home tenant, and Azure AD handles the federation automatically. However, for suppliers without Azure AD (which in automotive tier-1 scenarios can be 40-50% of your supplier base), you’re forcing them into the Microsoft ecosystem by requiring Microsoft accounts.
Okta’s universal directory approach is more flexible for heterogeneous supplier populations. You can federate with suppliers who have Azure AD, Google Workspace, or any SAML-capable IdP, while also directly managing identities for suppliers without enterprise identity systems. For your 15-country, 200+ supplier scenario with varying IT capabilities, Okta’s flexibility likely outweighs Azure AD’s seamless integration for Microsoft-ecosystem suppliers.
Role-Based Access Control Configuration:
Both platforms handle RBAC effectively, but the implementation patterns differ. Azure AD uses group-based access with group claims in SAML assertions. Your supplier tier mapping (strategic/preferred/approved/conditional) would be implemented as Azure AD groups, and Trackwise would map these to portal roles. This works well but is relatively static - changing a supplier’s tier requires Azure AD group membership changes.
Okta’s attribute-based approach provides more dynamic RBAC. You can define custom user attributes (supplier_tier, qualification_status, risk_level) and send these as SAML attributes to Trackwise. This allows for more nuanced access control - for example, a conditional supplier might have read-only access to certain modules but full access to others based on multiple attribute combinations. For complex automotive supply chain scenarios with dynamic supplier relationships, Okta’s ABAC capabilities offer more flexibility.
Audit Logging and Compliance Trail Completeness:
Both platforms meet FDA 21 CFR Part 11 and IATF 16949 audit requirements, but with different integration approaches. Azure AD’s authentication logs integrate natively with Azure Monitor, Azure Sentinel, and Microsoft 365 compliance center. If you’re already using Microsoft’s compliance stack, this provides a unified audit trail across authentication, authorization, and application access events.
Okta’s System Log captures comprehensive authentication and authorization events with excellent granularity, but you’ll need to integrate these logs into your compliance reporting infrastructure. Okta provides pre-built integrations with major SIEM platforms (Splunk, LogRhythm, QRadar). For Trackwise-specific compliance scenarios, you’ll likely need to correlate Okta authentication events with Trackwise application logs regardless of which IdP you choose.
Key consideration: Azure AD’s conditional access policies can enforce compliance requirements at authentication time (MFA for high-risk supplier access, location restrictions, device compliance checks). Okta has similar capabilities through adaptive MFA and policy-based access, but Azure AD’s integration with Microsoft Defender and Intune provides deeper device compliance verification if that’s important for your supplier access security model.
Supplier Lifecycle Provisioning Automation:
This is where Okta has a significant advantage. Okta’s Lifecycle Management and Workflows engine can automate provisioning and deprovisioning based on events in external systems. For your requirement to automatically adjust access when suppliers move through qualification lifecycle stages, Okta can:
- Receive webhook notifications from Trackwise when supplier status changes
- Execute workflow logic to update user attributes and group memberships
- Propagate changes back to Trackwise and other connected applications
- Trigger deprovisioning when suppliers are disqualified
Azure AD can achieve similar automation using Microsoft Graph API, Azure Logic Apps, and Azure Functions, but it requires more custom development. You’d need to build the integration layer between Trackwise supplier status changes and Azure AD group/attribute updates. If you have strong Azure development capabilities, this is feasible. If you want more out-of-box automation, Okta’s workflow engine is more mature.
SAML 2.0 vs OAuth2 Protocol Considerations:
For supplier portal SSO with Trackwise 9.1, SAML 2.0 is the standard choice regardless of IdP. Both Azure AD and Okta implement SAML 2.0 robustly. OAuth2/OIDC becomes relevant if you’re building custom supplier portal applications that need API access to Trackwise, but for the core SSO use case, SAML 2.0 is appropriate.
The protocol choice doesn’t differentiate Azure AD from Okta. What matters more is how each platform handles SAML attribute mapping and group claims, which I covered under RBAC above.
Practical Recommendation:
For your specific scenario (200+ suppliers, multi-country, varying IT maturity, complex RBAC, lifecycle automation), I’d recommend Okta if budget allows. The universal directory flexibility and mature lifecycle automation capabilities align better with automotive tier-1 supplier management complexity. However, if you’re deeply invested in the Microsoft ecosystem (Azure infrastructure, Microsoft 365, existing Azure AD Premium licenses) and most of your strategic suppliers already use Azure AD or Microsoft accounts, Azure AD becomes more attractive from a total cost and integration perspective.
Consider a hybrid approach for large supplier populations: Use Azure AD B2B for suppliers with existing Microsoft/Azure AD identities (probably your strategic and preferred suppliers), and use Okta’s universal directory for smaller suppliers without enterprise identity systems. Both platforms can coexist, with Trackwise configured to accept SAML assertions from multiple IdPs. This gives you the best of both worlds but increases operational complexity.