Google Cloud Identity Reviews

Google is always on its own. Google Cloud Identity is pretty good on every point.

The one place it could be improved is the password vaulting. The password vaulting does not prevent the admins from reading users' passwords, and that's a debate.

Some say, if you're an employee and you goof up or something happens, your admin should be able to see your password. In my world - no. If I goof up my admin should be able to reset my passwords but not see what they were. If I want to use the name of my dog plus numbers, he doesn't need to read that. He just needs to reset it. That's a distinction. We call it zero trust. Password vaulting should not allow the admin the possibility to read. I made the observation to Google and they said, "Well, yes, but it's logged," and that's not good enough.

The fact that the super admin was able to read all of my passwords and that it's logged, the log is only for the super admin - he is the only person that reads them and which will have the log that he read them.

Besides the password vaulting, it works fine. It's just that security notion that I'm not comfortable with. So I'm using a password manager, hence LastPass when password vaulting is required.

In the next release, we need to clean up the console for the admin. In the three years that I am using it, I think I'm up to my sixth version. This is proof that if they change the console so much, it's because they keep on trying to improve it. 

What they need to improve, clearly, is the zero trust enrollment for Chrome OS devices. They are getting there, but they need to keep on improving it. So zero trust enrollment to make it super smooth, buttery smooth. 

I have been using Google Cloud Identity nearly since it came out, so more than two years, perhaps three. The full name is Google Cloud Identity Premium.

I'm using LastPass Enterprise and Saaspass in the same field, and Google Cloud Identity Premium. Those are my three go-to products now.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Google Cloud Identity a nine because of its password vaulting. Also, it does what Okta does but for many more zeros on the invoice.

This is a very specific solution. The primary use case of this solution is to manage users. It's only used in one way unless there is an alteration to it.

Everything is relatively good and overall, the product itself is good.

The most valuable feature is that you can manage users from one central location.

It would be good if they dealt with Unity Accounting, which would allow companies to pay in different ways.

In the next release, I would like to see integration with different systems, mainly wireless SIEMS and other analytical systems that we want to introduce.

I have been using this solution for four years.

This solution is very stable, it's good.

It's a cloud solution. It's scalable.

We have approximately five IT users, some administrators in addition to other users who are connected and just using the space.

We are using this solution daily, but don't plan to increase the usage as it's enough for us as it is.

We have not contacted technical support.

We did not use another solution previously. We just started to use Google because I think that Google is great.

The initial setup is straightforward and simple.

It took less than a month to deploy and only requires one person to deploy and maintain.

We did not use a vendor, integrator or consultant. We implemented this solution ourselves.

The fees are paid monthly and there are no additional costs other than the licensing fees.

Before we chose Google Cloud Identity, we evaluated Azure.

My advice is to understand in detail what exactly you need from this solution because every case could be different. Even if the main use case is the same, your current requirements could be different, specifically the security requirements. If you want to achieve more from the GDPR then you have to choose a provider in Europe.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I've performed some tasks in the last month, such as creating users, channel applications, and single sign-on integrations with both cloud and on-premise applications. 

The creation of Service Accounts (SAN) or channel applications is somewhat different from Azure Active Directory. Google Cloud Identity uses what they call organizational units (OUs) instead of the security groups you'd find in Microsoft's Entra. 

You can establish a connection between Active Directory and Google Cloud Identity, much like with Microsoft's Entra, allowing user synchronization between on-premises and cloud environments. 

In terms of security, there's a significant difference. Microsoft Entra is more security-oriented compared to Google Cloud Identity. Microsoft has invested heavily in security, offering features like multifactor authentication and advanced options. 

While Google Cloud Identity has some basic security options like multifactor authentication and features similar to conditional access, it lacks the depth of security features that Microsoft Entra provides. I've used their Active Directory connector SAML integrations and set up single sign-on integrations between applications and Google Cloud Identity.

There is room for improvement in the configuration of their security policies. It seems quite basic. While they offer geolocation and some device management, including multifactor authentication, it feels too elementary for an identity management solution. Microsoft Entra has advanced features, including those related to artificial intelligence, which Google Cloud Identity currently lacks. It appears that Google Cloud Identity is a step behind Microsoft Azure in terms of security features.

I've used what was formerly known as G Suite, now rebranded as Google Workspace and, more specifically, Google Cloud Identity. They tend to change the names of their solutions quite frequently.

The initial setup is simple. You need a verified domain. I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy. 

Microsoft Entra is a bit more expensive, Google Cloud Identity is relatively similar. However, considering the features offered, I lean towards Microsoft Entra.

We are a managed service provider, and our solutions are often based on what our clients have. We had to use Google Cloud Identity for an integration between Cisco AnyConnect VPN and MD Cloud Identity. 

These were the resources our client had. We were considering offering them Azure Active Directory or Microsoft Entra, or sticking with their platform in Google Cloud. After comparing these options, they chose Google Cloud Identity. We integrated their VPN with a single sign-on through Google Cloud.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. The solution can improve a lot. 

We use Cloud Identity for application authentication. 

All of Cloud Identity's features are quite fine.

The interface could be more user-friendly. 

I've been using Cloud Identity for three years.

Cloud Identity is stable. 

Cloud Identity is scalable enough for our needs. It's serving more than 3,000 users in our organization.

Google support is fantastic. 

I can't recall how long the Cloud Identity takes to set up, but it wasn't cumbersome. 

The license is yearly, and it's cheap.

I rate Cloud Identity nine out of 10. 

In my previous project, we were designing and implementing a cloud foundation for a US-based pharma customer. We set up  Google Cloud Platform for them and used Cloud Identity to manage their end-users. We synchronized directly with Cloud Identity using the Google Cloud Directory Synchronization tool. That allowed us to synchronize user identities from the Microsoft Active Directory to Cloud Identity. We also synchronized Active Directory-based groups to Google Cloud then mapped the users to the groups and used those groups to assign high-end policies on the Google Cloud Platform. We also configured the Cloud Identity Single Sign-On service to enable the end-users to use their Active Directory credentials to log into the Identity Cloud platform via a single sign-on.

Cloud Identity is user-friendly. You don't need much expertise or previous experience with Cloud Identity to work with it. It's a simple user interface, and the configuration is pretty straightforward. You can look at the GUI and figure out what you want to do. It's intuitive to use.

One of the most useful features was the single sign-on. You can use it as an identity provider or service provider. And you can use their organization unit feature to enable or disable some of the features for a specific group of users. For example, suppose you don't want to enable or disable a particular feature for only some users. In that case, you can create an organization unit, and you can set the policies on that specific organization unit. 

I also found the groups feature valuable. Google recommends that enterprises use groups instead of directly managing the high-end policies for individual identities. And the GCDS tool is beneficial as well. You can schedule it to run whenever you'd like so that it automatically connects with your active directory, and the target is the Cloud Identity. It just synchronizes the users, groups, or whatever else you choose. 

One area where Cloud Identity has room for improvement is monitoring and alerts. If you want to set up some alerts, you don't have much control over the configuration. You have to use their default alerts. And they only provide alerts for certain activities, so you cannot customize those. Monitoring isn't very helpful either. If I have four or five administrators, I would like to know what they're doing and monitor their activity. Unfortunately, I have to navigate through so many areas to monitor them.

In the free version, I can only manage up to 100 identities. That isn't limited in the premium version, but I would like to manage more identities in the free tier. Also, you cannot use any business features in the free version. 

I have worked on Cloud Identity for almost a year. My most recent experience was around one or two months back. Currently, I'm not using it that much, but I worked with it extensively in the past.

Cloud Identity's stability is great.

If you want to scale up, you need to purchase a business license. You have to buy the business license for a large number of users, and they'll charge you based on that.

The technical support documentation was quite helpful. If you contact support directly, they will assist you in setting up anything you find difficult, but it is a long process. You cannot expect a reply immediately. You have to wait one or two hours.

I have a little experience with Active Directory, but not much with other cloud-based identity providers. Cloud Identity is a cloud-based Software as a Service model, so you don't need to worry about managing the infrastructure. That is one advantage. Active Directory is just software you install on your own Windows VM or Windows Server and manage. You need some technical expertise to install, configure, and manage the Active Directory, whereas Cloud Identity is straightforward. If you have a little bit of experience with IT, you can handle it. You don't need a lot of technical expertise to work on Cloud Identity.

It is cloud-based Software as a Service model, so you don't need to provision anything on your own. You sign up like any G Suite service. Once you sign up for Cloud Identity using your domain, you must verify that you own the domain. It's straightforward after that. One person is enough to manage Cloud Identity, but you can have two or three people for availability purposes. It took one or two hours to get it deployed. I just had to coordinate with the domain admin guy. Aside from managing the end-users, there isn't much maintenance. It's SaaS, so Google manages all the infrastructure for you.

When I worked on Cloud Identity, they offered a free or enterprise version. You can synchronize and create up to 100 user identities in the free version. After that, you have to purchase a business or enterprise license. In that model, you'll be charged based on the number of users. I don't remember exactly how much they charge per user.

I rate Cloud Identity eight out of 10. If you're considering Cloud Identity, I say go ahead and try it. It's a great, simple tool to manage your identities. You can just integrate it with your existing directory solutions, and it works pretty well.

We use the solution for collaboration and productivity. My company also uses it for logging into laptops.

The tool provides a free service that you can integrate for laptop authentication. You also don’t need a separate Active Directory.

I want the tool to improve its support. It should also incorporate some functionalities. Currently, preparing presentations in Google is a pain point. The tool’s certain features like user provisioning are not intuitive as well. The product’s LDAP support is very poor. Clients do not trust the product due to the spam.

I have been using the product for six years.

The solution is stable. I would rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten.

The product is quite scalable. I would give it a seven out of ten. We have around fifty users for the solution.

The tool’s support doesn’t provide information when we contact them.

Neutral

I have worked with Azure. If there is competition between Azure and Google Cloud, I would prefer Azure over Google Cloud.

The product’s installation is straightforward.

I would rate the tool a seven out of ten.

The solution has a good amount of features.

The product does integrate well with Azure products.

It's easy to set up.

The stability is good.

The solution can scale.

If I compare the product with Azure Active Directory, Google is much too complex to integrate. I am more familiar with Microsoft.

It has a bit of a complex interface.

Technical support is slow.

The security is questionable. 

I've been dealing with the solution for three or four months at this point. It hasn't been too long.

The stability is very good. There aren't bugs or glitches. it's reliable. it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the scalability to be quite good.

In Google, if we want support they are very slow to respond. Microsoft support is much better and far more responsive. We aren't quite as satisfied with Google. 

When we want to integrate something with Microsoft, it might take an hour, however, when we want to do something on Google, we'll be trying to reach support for an hour.

I'm also familiar with Microsoft, which I find easier to work with.

For a completely new user and setup, the initial implementation is very straightforward.

As integrators, we can implement the solution for clients.

We're integrators.

In terms of the ecosystem, if the ecosystem there really is no problem with productivity. However,  if they already have a lot of Microsoft, Azure might be better. I'm very happy with Azure. However, as a second option, Cloud Identity is quite good.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

The primary use cases include mobile device management and device management in general and security.

Basically, it allows context server access, provides family integrations, and enables the auto-creation of users using family integration. And there's also the security aspect with context server access and other features. 

Additionally, it includes mobile device management (MDM) with Android for Work and Windows Device Management are valuable features.

It doesn't offer Mac, Linux, and other device management options.

In the future release, Google Cloud Identity could enhance existing features like audit logs and better integration with other products

I have been using this solution for ten years. We are working with the latest version.

It is a very stable solution. I would rate it a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. I would say about seven. There is room for improvement in scalability. But in terms of device management and Windows device management, I would say seven. 

We mostly have enterprise-level clients.

The customer service and support team is not so good. It is somewhere between. I think they don't have enough engineers trained on this product, so normally a lot of backend work is required to get issues resolved.

Neutral

It is easy to install. However, it could be easier. For the Windows device management agent, there isn't an easy way to install it and push it into the devices. We would prefer a better way of managing Windows or pushing that agent.

The time for deployment depends on the number of users. Generally, for a 10,000-user base, it takes about ninety days. Moreover, maintenance is easier because of the way Google has integrated everything into a single console. It's simpler to maintain. One person should be enough for 10,000 users.

One or two engineers and one technician are required for the deployment process.

The pricing is a bit expensive. It could be cheaper. The pricing model has monthly and yearly subscriptions. Moreover, there are no additional costs to the standard license. 

I recommend doing a POC (Proof of Concept) before implementing it on a large scale.  I would recommend using the solution. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. There is still room for improvement in the solution, especially in terms of installation scalability, and it doesn't offer support for Mac and Linux.