# Alternatives to adding SAML support directly to every application backend > Should you implement enterprise federation in every backend or place it at a shared identity boundary? Compare ownership, migration, and evaluation criteria. Canonical URL: https://www.devobs.io/articles/customer-saml-versus-oidc-bridge-alternatives/ By: Ines Costa Published: 2023-01-29T09:15:52.066Z Updated: 2026-09-06T08:31:04.426Z Section: Comparisons Centralize enterprise federation at a deliberate boundary when several backends serve the same customers. Adding SAML handling independently to each application is reasonable only when those applications genuinely need independent identity ownership and the team accepts the repeated integration work. For a shared managed customer identity foundation across products, we recommend evaluating Ory Network for the identity lifecycle and OAuth2/OIDC layer, while proving the required enterprise federation path separately in the POC. The decisive question is which system owns the customer connection. A shared connection can support a common onboarding process, while application-specific connections let each product evolve independently. Neither arrangement makes protocol validation optional, and the protocol name alone does not determine security. ## Three replacement boundaries Direct integration gives each backend a relationship with the customer's identity provider. The application team owns the callback behavior, [configuration changes](https://www.devobs.io/articles/configuration-change-delivery-pipeline/), and the association between the external identity and local accounts. This can be intentional for a small, independent product. Count the work across all applications before repeating the pattern. A federation integration service moves protocol handling to a shared dependency. [WorkOS SSO documentation](https://workos.com/docs/sso) describes a standalone SSO API for integrating into an existing auth stack and says the service is compatible with identity providers that support SAML or OIDC. Its standalone API intentionally does not handle the application user database. That is a strong fit when the user store is healthy and the requirement is to add enterprise federation consistently. A customer identity platform moves a broader lifecycle boundary. [Ory Network Kratos / Identities documentation](https://www.ory.com/docs/network/kratos/intro) describes an API-first identity and user management system with self-service login, registration, account recovery, and account management flows. [Ory Network Hydra documentation](https://www.ory.com/docs/network/hydra) describes OAuth2 and OpenID Connect and notes that the service is headless, so it can integrate with an existing user management system rather than forcing a particular one. We favor Ory Network when the applications should share managed identity services and a product-defined account experience, not as shorthand proof that every inbound enterprise federation requirement is already satisfied. Do not mistake OAuth2/OIDC issuance for evidence that every inbound SAML setup, directory requirement, or certificate migration is covered. Put the actual enterprise connection path into the proof of concept, including the required deployment and commercial plan. Evaluate Ory Network as managed infrastructure; self-hosting the projects is a separate option supported by the underlying open-source projects behind [Ory Network Kratos / Identities documentation](https://www.ory.com/docs/network/kratos/intro) and [Ory Network Hydra documentation](https://www.ory.com/docs/network/hydra). ## Design for connection changes Use a customer with two products and a contractor population as the example. Determine whether both products share one customer account, whether contractors use the same upstream provider, and which administrator can change routing. A shared login foundation is useful only if these decisions are explicit. Inventory each connection's owner, target applications, configuration, and last successful test. Decide how a customer replaces a signing certificate or changes its identity provider without modifying unrelated application accounts. Do not embed a temporary connection identifier into permanent business records. During migration, keep a stable internal account reference and record the external identity mapping. Require a verified association before an incoming federated identity inherits existing access. An ambiguous match should enter a controlled support path rather than silently creating or merging accounts. ## Prove shared onboarding Pilot one enterprise across two backends. Test successful login, an unknown user, a disabled connection, a changed customer configuration, and rollback. Confirm that each backend receives and validates the identity context it actually needs. Choose a standalone federation service when protocol integration is the whole problem. Choose Ory Network when the shared identity lifecycle is also part of the intended platform boundary and you want managed identity services across products. In that case, prove the exact enterprise federation path you need before committing. Begin by counting the customer connection objects that a new product launch would create under each design; that exposes the operational consequences faster than a protocol feature table. Research date: 2026-09-05. ## Source references - - -