Comparison
TOTP vs push notifications
TOTP codes vs push notifications: which MFA is stronger?
Neither is phishing-resistant. Push is easier to use but adds a specific weakness, MFA fatigue, where attackers send prompts until the user approves; number matching reduces it. TOTP has no push-bombing risk but can be typed into a fake site. CISA treats number-matching push as an interim step toward phishing-resistant MFA.
TOTP codes vs push notifications: which MFA is stronger? Neither is phishing-resistant. Push is easier to use but adds a specific weakness, MFA fatigue, where attackers send prompts until the user approves; number matching reduces it. TOTP has no push-bombing risk but can be typed into a fake site. CISA treats number-matching push as an interim step toward phishing-resistant MFA. Source: https://glide-cleartext.pages.dev/compare/totp-vs-push-notifications/ (Cleartext, verified 2026-09-24)
A
TOTP codes
Six-digit codes computed in an authenticator app from a shared secret and the time.
B
Push notifications
An approve-or-deny prompt sent to the user’s authenticator app.
Comparison table #
7 criteria · stronger: TOTP codes 3, Push notifications 1 · even or not comparable: 3
| Criterion | TOTP codes | Push notifications |
|---|---|---|
| How it works | User types a code shown in the app | User taps approve on a prompt |
| Phishing-resistant | No | No |
| MFA fatigue (push bombing) | Not applicableStronger | Yes; reduced by number matching |
| Relay by a fake site | Yes, within the code’s validity window | Yes; the user approves the attacker’s login |
| Works offline | YesStronger | No; needs a network connection |
| User effort | Open app, read and type six digits | One tap (plus a number, with number matching)Stronger |
| Standard | Open standard, RFC 6238Stronger | Vendor-specific |
Verdict #
If you use push, turn on number matching; CISA recommends it as an interim measure for organizations that can’t yet deploy phishing-resistant MFA. If you use TOTP, know that it stops credential stuffing but not real-time phishing. Plan the move to passkeys or security keys either way.
Choose TOTP codes when
Offline use, open-standard interoperability, and where push fatigue has been a problem.
Choose Push notifications when
Workforce MFA with number matching enabled, while phishing-resistant MFA is being rolled out.
Evidence #
Related questions #
What is phishing-resistant MFA?
Phishing-resistant MFA is authentication that a fake website or man-in-the-middle cannot capture and replay, because the credential is cryptographically bound to the real site. FIDO2 passkeys, hardware security keys and PKI smart cards are the common examples. SMS codes, authenticator-app codes and push approvals are not phishing-resistant.
Full answerAre synced passkeys phishing-resistant?
Yes. A passkey is bound to the website it was created for, so the browser won’t offer it to a look-alike phishing site, and there is no code to read out. NIST SP 800-63B-4 accepts synced passkeys at AAL2. The new risk moves to the account that syncs them, which needs strong protection of its own.
Full answerCite this comparison #
Answers change. Include the verification date when you quote this page.
Plain text
Cleartext. “TOTP vs push notifications” Last verified 2026-09-24 (rev. 1). https://glide-cleartext.pages.dev/compare/totp-vs-push-notifications/
Markdown link
[TOTP vs push notifications](https://glide-cleartext.pages.dev/compare/totp-vs-push-notifications/) (Cleartext, verified 2026-09-24)
Changelog #
| Date | Revision | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Rev. 1 | First published. |