Microsoft Entra ID Protection Reviews

We use the product for various purposes, such as implementing conditional access policies and access reviews. These features are available with specific licenses, such as the E3 and E5 licenses, including privileged identity management features.

The platform's pricing and scalability need improvement. 

I have worked with Microsoft Entra ID for about two to three years.

The product is stable and does not exhibit significant glitches or performance issues.

The scalability features are good overall. Depending on the cloud environment and device synchronization, there might be occasional delays, such as updates taking from ten minutes to 45 minutes.

Although support services are generally good, there have been delays in some cases, such as issues with license management.

Positive

The deployment process is straightforward. It takes a few hours to complete. 

The product cost is on the expensive side. For example, a subscription for one user can cost around 4,000 to 5,000 INR per month, plus GST. There is potential for improvement in this area.

I rate the pricing a nine out of ten. 

The platform's conditional access features are satisfactory. For instance, I configured policies to require users to reauthenticate every eight hours and to restrict access through specific browsers.

Based on my limited use cases, the performance seems adequate. However, further testing would be necessary for a more extensive evaluation.

I rate it a nine out of ten. 

Our company uses the solution to provide identity protection services to customers. We currently have fifteen developers on our team. 

The solution provides good information security that includes sensitive labeling. 

The sign-in and audit logs work well. 

The reverse proxy feature provides additional security that is not available in other solutions such as SailPoint and Dell. 

Identity labeling and sensitivity needs improvement to be comparable to Dell. 

Password management needs to include a keyword mechanism that blocks or allows generic passwords. 

The auditor tool needs to include SIEM events in addition to sign-in and audit logs. Currently, we have to rely on third-party solutions for our log needs. 

The solution's models need to be centralized instead of having different names and separate platforms. We have to spend a lot of time integrating all the models with the IAM. 

I have been using the solution for four years. 

The solution is stable and reliable.

The solution is scalable to a customer's needs. 

Technical support is very good.

I rate support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

The initial setup is simple. Getting ready for implementation takes time because it requires internal meetings and planning. 

I rate setup an eight out of ten. 

We implemented the solution in-house with a team of twenty technicians. 

Ongoing maintenance is not an issue because we pre-tested all components before implementation. 

The pricing is competitive in the SMA segment and runs $5-$6 per user. 

I rate pricing an eight out of ten. 

We are currently researching applications that will replace our hybrid model and include SIEM management. 

We have looked at the capabilities of Dell and SailPoint. 

The solution needs to be better marketed to the SMA segment because they are not as aware of information security. 

I rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

I use the solution to manage users, groups, access, and license. 

The tool is simple and you can find a lot of tutorials, and videos on YouTube that can help you. 

The solution's sync should be faster since it can take about 30 minutes to two hours to complete a simple sync. The tool needs to sync instantly. It also needs to improve scalability, support, and stability. 

I have been using the product for four years. 

I would rate the solution's stability a nine out of ten. We encountered bugs while integrating with other Microsoft or MDM solutions. 

I would rate the product's scalability a nine out of ten. My company has 200 users.

Support takes longer than expected to revert back. 

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We mostly deal with identity management by different vendors. We are a partner of Microsoft, Oracle, and Symantec, among others, and we also deal with open-source solutions like Evolvium ID. We are dealing with Microsoft Identity Manager. They call it Microsoft Entra IntraID.

Microsoft Entra ID Protection has allowed us to manage partners and external users effectively, providing us with trust from these organizations. Access reviews are conducted to ensure that when partners leave their respective organizations, they are also cleaned up on our side.

The features we find most effective for identity security include access reviews, two-factor authentication, and modification.

Microsoft has room for improvement in simplifying their integration with third-party solutions and making the licensing model more understandable.

I have been working with Microsoft ID Protection for five to seven years.

Microsoft Entra ID Protection is stable, and we do not need any technical assistance.

The product is very scalable and works well.

I am very satisfied with the technical support. Microsoft has consolidated their support into one, which has been very effective. However, I have not needed to request any technical support from them.

Positive

We find mostly SailPoint used by big companies, however, we don't use SailPoint at the moment.

The interface is very good, and setting up is easy because it involves SaaS solutions where you click a button and it does everything. It's easy to configure, sign up, and integrate.

Microsoft has various pricing models. Some of them are bundled with the current price, such as E3 and E5. Understanding the pricing model requires familiarity with their fragmented model.

For identity management instead of Symantec, the recommended solutions depend on the environment, features, complexity, user types, and budget.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

The solution helps us with authentication. 

I am impressed with the tool's compliance and authentication. 

The solution is not optimized to work with Mac devices on a granular level. They work seamlessly with Windows but have a lot to improve to work with Mac devices. It also needs to improve stability and scalability. 

I would rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten.

I would rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten.