Will Microsoft Entra be cited as a factor in documented Okta enterprise customer losses by Q2 FY2027?

The resolution criteria are broad enough to be triggered by general competitive commentary on earnings calls. Okta management already frames competition as Microsoft vs. independence — the Q3 FY2026 call has CEO McKinnon explicitly positioning against Microsoft Identity. Three more earnings cycles (Q4 FY2026, Q1 FY2027, Q2 FY2027) provide multiple opportunities for analyst questions to elicit Entra-specific displacement commentary. The critical data gap is that competitive win/loss rates are unavailable, meaning displacement may already be occurring without public attribution. However, current customer metrics ($1M+ ACV up 15%, NRR flat at 106%, contract lengths at multiyear highs) show no visible installed-base erosion. The most likely path to YES is an analyst question on an earnings call prompting management to acknowledge specific competitive losses, not actual mass displacement.

The question asks whether Entra will be 'cited as a factor' in documented losses — not whether large-scale displacement occurs. This is an important distinction. Microsoft's own earnings calls frequently highlight customer wins by segment, and identity is a growth area Microsoft promotes. The probability of Microsoft citing identity wins from traditional IAM vendors over 3 earnings cycles is moderate. However, the resolution criteria specifically require 'documented evidence of Okta losing enterprise customers specifically to Microsoft Entra' — general competitive wins don't qualify without Okta being named. Okta's current posture is to avoid acknowledging specific competitive losses to Entra; management frames the competition as philosophical (vendor-neutral vs. lock-in) rather than transactional. The switching cost protection (2.5yr avg contracts, 7,500+ OIN integrations) makes actual displacement slow even if Entra is gaining greenfield share.

Parsing the resolution criteria carefully: it can resolve YES from (a) Okta management acknowledgment, (b) Microsoft citing identity wins from Okta, or (c) credible third-party reports. Path (c) is the most likely trigger — Gartner and Forrester regularly publish IAM market assessments, and the identity market is actively consolidating. The Myth Meter flagged that the bear narrative on Entra has 'partial truth' — Microsoft-heavy enterprises have less incentive for standalone Okta. Over a 7-month window (now to Sept 2026), the probability of at least one credible report documenting Entra-driven migration cases from Okta is moderate. The Gravy Gauge identified 'Microsoft Entra Competition' as a dependency with TAM compression in MSFT-heavy enterprises — this language may appear in analyst reports. The unresolved debate about whether growth deceleration reflects market maturation vs. Entra pressure adds uncertainty. The data staleness (115 days) means Q4 FY2026 results (likely reported ~March 2026) may already contain relevant signals not in our analysis.

The hard evidence says no displacement is happening yet. $1M+ ACV customers grew 15% YoY to 495. NRR at 106% is flat but not declining. Contract lengths at multiyear highs. Okta is winning consolidation deals (Fortune 500 example replacing SailPoint, CyberArk, HashiCorp, Ping, ForgeRock — consolidating on Okta, not Entra). The question is whether documentation of displacement will emerge over 7 months. Given that the current installed base metrics are stable to positive, the most likely scenario is that Entra captures greenfield deals rather than displacing existing Okta customers. The resolution criteria require specific displacement evidence, which is harder to document than general market share shifts.

The Moat Mapper classified this as HIGH likelihood, HIGH severity threat with ongoing timeline. The question is not whether the threat is real — it clearly is — but whether it will produce documented evidence within 7 months. Microsoft's enterprise sales motion is aggressive and identity is a key bundling lever. Enterprise IT publications (CIO.com, Computerworld, etc.) regularly report on large migration projects. The probability that zero reports emerge over 7 months of a widely-discussed competitive dynamic is moderate but not overwhelming. Wall Street analysts will repeatedly ask about Entra on Okta earnings calls, and management may eventually provide more specific competitive commentary than the current philosophical framing. I weight the breadth of resolution sources (Okta calls, Microsoft calls, Gartner, Forrester, IT publications) as increasing the probability relative to a narrow resolution source.

I anchor on the current evidence: no documented displacement exists today. Okta's management has a strong incentive to not acknowledge specific competitive losses to Entra, and they've been disciplined in framing the competition philosophically. Microsoft similarly has little incentive to name Okta specifically when citing identity wins — they typically reference market share gains broadly. The third-party path requires a specific migration case study or report, which takes time to develop and publish. Seven months is a moderate window. The Gravy Gauge dependency assessment gives this a 'slow timeline (3+ years)' which suggests actual displacement is a multi-year process, not a near-term event. The switching costs (7,500+ OIN integrations, 2.5yr contracts) are real and make rapid displacement unlikely.

Genuine uncertainty. No displacement documented today, but 7-month window with 3 earnings cycles is meaningful exposure. Entra threat is real (confirmed by Moat Mapper and Gravy Gauge) but switching costs protect installed base. Resolution criteria are broad enough that a single analyst report could trigger YES. Balanced probability reflecting substantial uncertainty on both sides.

Customer metrics are positive: $1M+ ACV up 15%, NRR stable at 106%, contract lengths at highs. If displacement were occurring at scale, these metrics would show deterioration. The resolution criteria require specific documented displacement, not general competitive pressure. Most likely outcome: Entra gains greenfield share while Okta retains installed base. Documented displacement evidence is a higher bar than general competitive commentary.

The competitive dynamic is real but the documentation threshold matters. Three earnings cycles plus analyst reports provide multiple potential sources. The question is whether the competitive narrative, which already exists in general terms, will produce a specific documented case. Slight lean toward NO based on strong customer retention metrics and Okta management's discipline in avoiding specific loss acknowledgments.