Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

I am the Microsoft solution architect for our organization and we are in the process of testing Microsoft Entra ID. 

Microsoft Entra ID will serve as the identity provider for all services, including on-premises and other sources. For instance, it can be utilized to authenticate our in-house phone application, replacing the need for local active directory authentication. With Microsoft Entra ID, the local active directory becomes unnecessary for authentication purposes. As an illustration, even in services like Gmail, authentication through Microsoft Entra ID is possible. This presents an excellent option that is also user-friendly. 

Moreover, the system is uncomplicated, featuring a lightweight and non-hierarchical schema. In contrast to the conventional active directory with its organizational and sub-organizational structure, Microsoft Entra ID adopts a flat directory model, streamlining operations without hierarchies. While this approach offers advantages, it also comes with its drawbacks, such as its reliance on the cloud platform.

Microsoft Entra ID provides a unified interface where we can manage all of our entities. It utilizes a flat directory structure, allowing us to assign user access and group them using tags. For instance, when we create a user for the sales team, we simply apply a tag such as "sales," automatically adding that specific user to the sales group. This eliminates the need for the manual creation of containers and the manual grouping of users within a specific container. Everything is achieved through tagging, and streamlining the process, and is facilitated by the singular interface offered by Microsoft Entra ID.

We can easily apply security policies through a unified interface. Everything in Microsoft Azure can be utilized for server storage. Although it's within a single interface, there are options for differentiation. For instance, by clicking on the Microsoft Entra ID, we can access a distinct interface. Here, we have the ability to create, apply, and manage policies for various aspects, all from this specific interface.

The admin center helps us identify where there are issues and easily take action.

In Microsoft Azure, there is a tool called Intune, which serves as a device management tool. In the past, we encountered issues while managing all end devices through SSCM. This involved a constraint where any updates or policies could only be pushed if the device was connected to the office network. Essentially, users needed to physically connect their devices to the office network to receive updates or policy changes. However, with the introduction of Intune, a Microsoft Azure product, we transitioned all our devices to this platform. This allows us to create and directly push policies without the necessity of the device being on the corporate network. Users can now receive security updates, as well as different antivirus updates, even while working from home. This streamlined approach greatly simplifies endpoint maintenance, which also extends to mobile devices.

We do not utilize the Microsoft Entra ID conditional access feature for endpoint devices. Instead, we apply conditional access to specific groups. For instance, we have a team that requires access for a defined period. Additionally, certain types of vendors need access ranging from, for instance, two days to a few hours. In such cases, we employ the conditional access feature to grant the necessary access. We have employed this approach, and it has proven to be highly advantageous.

While we don't typically utilize the conditional access feature in combination with Microsoft Endpoint Manager from the user's standpoint, there are certain groups for which we do implement conditional access. For instance, within multiple teams, not all members are granted identical access. Various team levels enjoy distinct levels of access. It is in such scenarios that we employ the conditional access feature.

We have an access group where we define the access that each team will receive. Additionally, we have the Tier One, Tier Two, and Tier Three support teams, for which we have defined privileges based on their respective roles and responsibilities.

Microsoft Entra ID assists in saving several hours for our IT administrators and HR departments daily. This is particularly due to its unified interface. For instance, when we need to review certain logs, we can grant access to the HR team. They can easily retrieve logs detailing specific employee activities. This includes information such as individual browser usage duration and system activation records. These types of logs encompass the range of data generated on a daily basis from this platform.

Microsoft Entra ID has undoubtedly assisted in saving money for our organization. This is because we are not only utilizing the solution itself, but we can also incorporate our application server along with products such as software and solutions, including emails. Microsoft Entra ID is included as part of the package fee, which unequivocally contributes to cost and time savings. This is primarily due to the elimination of the necessity for an additional identity provider, as it is already encompassed within the package.

Our employees' user experience has improved with Microsoft Entra ID compared to the local Active Directory, which was occasionally slow, depending on the availability of our log-on server at the time. If it was unavailable, logging in was significantly slower, and we could get logged out. This is no longer the case, and now we can easily log in. 

The group assessment policy stands out as the most valuable feature. It allows us to create numerous groups and add multiple users to those specific groups. Managing these groups can become quite complex within the standard active directory procedures. For instance, when it comes to tasks like adding or removing users, especially if a user is checked out, it can be unclear whether someone needs to manually remove them from the active directory.

However, there exists an option that streamlines this process. This option automatically sends a notification to the user. We have the ability to define the email user in the designated field. Subsequently, the system will prompt us to confirm if continued access to this specific group is required for a few users. If this is a routine request, the system will retain the user in the group, ensuring their ongoing access. This particular feature proves to be incredibly useful in managing these scenarios.

The group policy structure options continue to change, and the naming conventions remain confusing when we access the cloud. 

The support is a bit slow. This is particularly challenging for the service engineers. For instance, opening a ticket takes a considerable amount of time to pinpoint the underlying issue. While high-severity tickets are resolved quickly, there are instances of lower-severity issues that still impact a specific group of users. Addressing these problems is taking longer than usual.

I would like to have the option if needed to use the hierarchy when setting up groups.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for three years.

Microsoft has really good SLAs and I can not remember the last time they went down. I would rate the stability of Microsoft Entra ID nine out of ten.

Scalability is quite simple, and the primary advantage of the cloud solution is its scalability; there isn't much to manage in this regard. Our growth remains unhindered because we don't have to impose limitations on ourselves when embarking on new projects or endeavors. Scalability is inherent, requiring only payment for additional resources if necessary. As there's no hardware involved, both scaling up and scaling down are easily achievable.

The support is slow to respond to and resolve minor issues.

Neutral

We are still using our standard Active Directory locally in our on-premises data center.

The complexity of the initial setup depends on the technique used. While it may seem a bit complicated, with the proper design, it becomes a non-issue. Each module has different procedures. For instance, the Defender module, which is a Microsoft service, serves as a part of the Entra ID, allowing us to block and control websites and provide security antivirus solutions. We have onboarded all our devices to Defender. Thus, the machine doesn't need to be part of Microsoft Entra ID, but migration is still possible.

Currently, we are in the midst of a project to onboard the devices to Microsoft Intune. We are transferring the devices from the local active directory, and this process is ongoing. For each device, specific scripts need to be executed, which can be a bit complex. The complexity often arises due to existing policies and applications. When everything is well-prepared, the onboarding process is smooth. This might be an easy task for a new organization, but for those already using a different solution, the migration process becomes a bit complex. Thorough testing is necessary, especially considering that policies tend to change over time.

This project has been running for more than two years and is still ongoing. The pilot phase alone is estimated to take about one and a half years due to various commitments. Unlike a company like Google, my organization operates differently; it encompasses multiple entities like the United Nations across various locations. Since the user count exceeds five thousand, we're being cautious and gradual in our migration. At present, we have migrated only around a hundred users for testing purposes. The migration of the remaining users is scheduled to occur soon.

The price is good, and we have no complaints.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID nine out of ten.

Microsoft Entra ID is utilized throughout our entire environment. It serves as a singular identity provider for all aspects of our operations, including servers, applications, endpoints, and even external applications. For instance, we can authenticate third-party applications using Microsoft Entra ID.

The required number of personnel for maintenance depends on the size of the organization and the quantity of Microsoft products in simultaneous use. For instance, if we have Microsoft Entra ID solely for email and SharePoint online teams, and there are around five thousand users. In this scenario, I believe that dedicating approximately three to four individuals to Microsoft maintenance would be reasonable.

I recommend Microsoft Entra ID. Microsoft Entra ID can be utilized for third-party applications like AWS and Google as well. It's user-friendly, allowing us to authenticate the products or applications of our interest, even if they are not located in the same place as our origin; nonetheless, they will function seamlessly.

I use Microsoft Entra ID to manage and reset user passwords and set their requirements so they can access the environment.

The Entra portal offers a unified interface to oversee user access. Through the Entra portal, I can access my resources. I utilize the quick user and quick group features to assign users to roles according to their permissions, missions, and development tasks. This involves our EBAC and RBAC systems, assigning tools, and linking them to functions required for executing tasks. After completing these assignments, we place these users in groups and grant them access to specific resource environments, aligned with their designated tasks within those environments.

The Entra portal does not affect the consistency of the security policies that we apply.

The administration center for managing identity and accessing tasks within our organization operates according to the established protocols and procedures prior to its implementation. We utilize account provisioning, RBAC, authentication, authorization, password management, security, and incident management. These are all components that we have implemented to facilitate access and development within our environment.

There are certain things that have helped improve our organization. First, security. With Entra ID, we have been able to implement SSO capabilities for our applications and most resources in our environment. This means that we can use a single credential to access all of our resources, which makes it more difficult for hackers to gain access. It also makes it easier for our users to sign in to resources without having to remember multiple passwords. Second, Entra ID allows us to implement multiple authentication factors. This adds an additional layer of security by requiring users to verify their identity in more than one way. For example, they might need to enter their password and then also provide a code from their phone. This makes it much more difficult for unauthorized users to gain access to our systems. Entra ID also makes it possible to define roles and permissions based on each user's needs. This allows us to grant users only the access they need to do their jobs, which helps to protect our data and systems. Finally, Entra ID allows us to implement conditional access controls. This means that we can restrict access to resources based on factors such as the user's location or the device they are using. This helps to protect our data from unauthorized access, even if a user's password is compromised.

Conditional access is a way to make decisions about enforcing security policies. These policies are made up of "if this, then that" statements. For example, if a user wants to access a resource, they might be required to complete a certain action, such as multi-factor authentication. If a user tries to sign in from a risky location, the system will either block them or require them to complete an additional layer of authentication.

The conditional access feature does not compromise the robustness of the zero-trust strategy, which is a good thing. I have configured it in my environment based on primary monitoring. We have certain locations that we do not trust users from. If a user tries to sign in from one of these locations, which the system automatically detects, they will be required to complete an additional layer of authentication. With zero trust, we do not trust anyone by default. Anyone trying to access our environment externally must be verified.

We use conditional access with Endpoint Manager. When configuring conditional access, we consider factors such as the user's location, device, and country. These are the things that we put in place when configuring the policy. We create users, put them in a group, and then decide to apply conditional access to that group. So, this particular group has been configured under conditional access. This means that no matter where they are, what device they use, or what activity they want to perform in the environment, they will be required to meet certain conditions that have been configured in the conditional access policy.

We use Verified ID to onboard remote users. SSO is configured for this purpose so that users do not have to remember multiple IDs, passwords, or usernames. This can be tedious when logging in to multiple applications. Once SSO is configured for our users, we also configure self-service password reset so that they can reset their passwords themselves if they forget them. With SSO, users only need to remember one credential, their Verified ID. When they log in to an application, such as Zoom, they are redirected to the identity trust provider, which is Entra ID. Entra ID requires a sign-in. Once the user enters their Verified ID into Entra ID, they are redirected back to Zoom and are issued an access token, which allows them to access Zoom. In this way, users can automatically access all other applications in the system that they are required to use to carry out their day-to-day tasks in the company.

Verified ID helps protect the privacy and identity data of our users. Data access management is all about the user's identity. The three main components of data access management are identity, authentication, and authorization. Identity access management is about protecting user information and ensuring that they only have access to the resources they need to perform their jobs. Verified ID is an additional layer of security that helps to ensure that users only have access to the right applications and resources. It does this by verifying the user's identity and ensuring that the resources are being accessed by the right person. Verified ID also uses certificates to confirm the trust and security of the system.

Permission management helps with visibility and control over who has access to what resources in the environment. For example, an HR manager should only have access to HR resources. To achieve this, we put users into groups based on their job function, such as the HR department. We then grant permissions to these groups to access the resources they need. This way, no one in the HR department can access resources that are meant for the financial department. Permission management helps to reduce unauthorized access to resources and prevent data breaches. Before we grant access to resources, we perform a role-based access control analysis to determine the permissions that each role needs.

Entra ID has helped us save a lot of time by streamlining our security access process. From time to time we conduct an access review to ensure that only the right people have access to the environment and resources.

Entra ID operates on multiple platforms and devices, which reduces the time spent on manual tasks and increases productivity. Its ability to integrate across our centers worldwide, providing accessibility, has saved us money.

Entra ID has improved the user experience and performance. It has enhanced performance by saving users time from having to log into so many applications, systems, or plug-ins. Now, they can log in using their Entra ID. It has also helped with security by enabling multi-factor authentication, which has cut down on attempted hacks. Entra ID has also made enrollment easier for users.

The valuable features I use daily are enterprise application, conditional access, identity governance, password monitoring, and a password reset.

The downside of using a single password to access the entire system is that if those credentials are compromised, the hacker will have full access. It would be more beneficial if Entra ID could be completely passwordless.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for six years.

Entra ID is stable. We have never had stability issues.

Entra ID is scalable.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID a ten out of ten. I enjoy using Entra ID and I see the benefits of using it.

No maintenance is required, except for occasional log reviews.

We use the solution to cover Microsoft 365 licenses.

We strive to provide our users with the easiest and fastest way possible to access. Most users view the single pane of glass as a feature that is beneficial. However, the security policy is more difficult to implement and must be managed and measured by the administration.

I give Entra Admin Center for managing all identity and access tasks in our organization an eight out of ten.

We use the Apple environment. When we tried to implement Azure Active Directory in our service, it was a bit difficult. So, we chose to use an alternative such as Okta. However, Azure Active Directory is very valuable because it connects with Apple School Manager itself. I would rate Azure Active Directory an eight out of ten.

Entra saved us about one hour per month.

The overall employee user experience with Entra is a seven out of ten.

We use Active Directory to manage our Microsoft 365 licenses. The solution is very easy to use. We conducted some tests to connect this with our MBM through the identity tools, which was also very easy. We just had to follow a few steps, but we needed to be more technically prepared.

Active Directory is easy to maintain due to our control of identities. We have a controller in place to maintain and clean the Active Directory, providing new identities and removing those no longer in use.

The most valuable feature of Azure AD is its ability to connect with services outside of Microsoft, although documentation is necessary to properly implement these connections. Azure AD is a reliable and well-tested solution, so it is arguably the most popular of its kind. While Azure AD may not be the easiest to use, it covers a wide range of areas.

Using Microsoft Endpoint Manager is not difficult. We must select two out of six or eight options for Entra's conditional access. To avoid invading privacy, such as requesting a phone number or personal email, we must opt for validation via an app.

Microsoft Entra Verified ID is straightforward, but the only option to apply is to install it on our mobile device.

Microsoft Entra Verified ID is an option we offer to employees, but most of them opt to use other identification methods instead of installing the app on their devices.

I give Microsoft Entra Verified ID's privacy and control of identity data a six out of ten.

I don't feel the Entra admin center offers a single pane of glass for managing user access because we have to use more resources and it is not user-friendly.

The user sign-on experience was ultimately satisfactory, but the process of finding the best configuration was somewhat arduous due to the protection of licenses or access; the users were confronted with strict instructions on how to log on and were required to select two options to do so, such as providing a cell number or personal email or using an app to connect and verify the two steps. This was not easy for the users to feel comfortable with.

The implementation of the conditional access feature was challenging due to our users' unfamiliarity with this type of login. Managing it was difficult.

The solution can improve the educational portion because it is an administration cost.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is extremely stable. I give the stability a ten out of ten.

The solution is easily scalable. I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. We had Microsoft's support within our company, and the local provider in Mexico was very easy to use. We only used this part for Microsoft 365. Connecting with our MBM provider was the same process and easy to do due to all the documentation; we simply followed the steps.

One person was used for the deployment.

The implementation was completed through a reseller.

We have seen a return on investment.

The pricing for Azure Active Directory is affordable; I would rate the cost a six out of ten. As an educational company, we have access to very good discounts on the solution, making it even more affordable.

When comparing Okta and Entra as authentication services, Okta is the market leader and is my preferred choice.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We must go through the test and assess how users can be more comfortable using the combination. The administration area is the most difficult, as our users have to install an application on their personal cell phones or provide a number, which is challenging. Our staff is quite particular about privacy.

New employees may not be aware of the backend efforts to protect licenses and secure information when we ask them to use Microsoft Entra Verified ID. This is not intended to be intrusive, but when we ask a user to install the Endpoint on their personal cell phone, they may be hesitant and not want to be inconvenienced on a personal level. They would prefer the onboarding process to be easy and not involve these methods. They just want to enter a simple password and move on.

I recommend looking for documentation on Azure, as it is a huge service with great potential and can connect to many other services. Learning about Azure is very interesting.

We're using Azure Active Directory to get authentication from Office 365, and along with this, we're using it for infrastructure-as-a-service authentication. For all the virtual machines hosted on Azure right now, we're getting authentication from Azure Active Directory.

In addition to these, we're using some other SaaS or software-as-a-service products such as SAP Ariba and SAP SuccessFactors. For these specific products also, I have integrated single sign-on via Azure Active Directory.

We're also using e-procurement solutions such as Tejari and SAP Ariba. To get authentication of my guest users, who are my partners, vendors, or external collaborators, we create their guest accounts on Azure Active Directory. They come into our applications through that. We get a secure channel to provide access to the external parties on our tenant through Azure Active Directory. These are the basic use cases of Azure Active Directory.

After moving to Azure Active Directory, life becomes very easy, not only for the administrator and IT people but for the end-users as well. They've now got a single sign-on. Previously, our end-users had to remember multiple account IDs and passwords, and they had to enter the relevant account ID and password for each application, whereas now, they have a single identity across all the applications provisioned in our landscape.

It's helpful for security and compliance. Security is a big concern right now, and we're very sensitive about it. I am from the Oil and Gas sector, and this is something that's very critical for us. Additionally, we have external contributors, such as partners, vendors, and technical consultants, who need access to our resources from outside the organization. Azure Active Directory provides some very good features for that such as guest user access and limited user access. 

It has default integration with all Microsoft products such as SharePoint, Power BI, Power Apps, Power Automate, and obviously, the infrastructure as the service landscape of Azure. This integration is surely amazing.

Conditional access is amazing. I have a success story to share for the conditional access feature. About six or seven years ago, we identified a cyber attack that was coming from certain IPs from Nigeria on our tenant, and through that, some of our users were compromised. We blocked all Nigerian IPs using Azure conditional access and saved our users. It was something amazing and life-saving for us. 

The conditional access feature complements the zero-trust strategy. It makes our environment more secure. It makes our environment more reliable as far as the whole security landscape is concerned.

We use Microsoft Endpoint Manager. Initially, we were not using it, but later on, we started to use Microsoft Endpoint, which was previously known as Microsoft Advanced Threat Protection. Implementing secure policies of Microsoft Endpoint, advanced threat protection, and conditional access provides us with a very safe and kind of sandbox environment. This combination protects us from those who are accessing our environment from unpatched devices, pirated applications, and applications with security loopholes.

We're also using Microsoft Intune to save our corporate devices and provide a secure zone for our users to access corporate resources and applications.

Personally, I'm a great fan of Azure Active Directory due to the security and compliance features that are there in the classic or default Azure Active Directory. 

The conditional access feature is absolutely great through which we provide access to users on the basis of a certain device, a certain geographical location, a certain set of IPs, or any other criteria that we can define via a set of rules. 

The auditing of Azure Active Directory is fantastic, and its integration with Cloud App Security is something amazing because we can get complete visibility of our environment through Cloud App Security. It also helps us a lot with our yearly audits and monthly reporting.

There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of its integration with the local Active Directory. There are some gaps in terms of the local Active Directory through which Microsoft is syncing our environment from our data center. There should be the availability of custom attributes on Azure Active Directory. In addition, there should be the availability of security groups and distribution groups that are residing on the local Active Directory. Currently, they are not replicated on Azure Active Directory by default.

There should also be a provision for Azure Active Directory to support custom-built applications. 

I've been using this solution for the last 12 years.

It's very stable.

It's very scalable. It's being used in companies with 64 users as well as in companies with 16,000 users. For both companies, it's working perfectly. It's a very good product.

My environment is based on multiple things. We're using Office 365 in the software-as-a-service mode. We're using Azure infrastructure in the infrastructure-as-a-service mode. We have integrated our Azure Active Directory with multiple third-party solutions such as Oracle Aconex, SAP S4HANA, SAP Ariba, SAP SuccessFactors, and Tejari. Along with this, we're providing authentication services to our third-party or external vendors, contractors, and guest users through Azure Active Directory. It's in hybrid mode. It's in the private cloud, software-as-a-service, and infrastructure-as-a-service environments. There are multiple environments.

Back in 2010 or 2011, when Microsoft launched it initially, it was very good, but since COVID or post-COVID, the quality has reduced significantly. Before COVID, it was very good. We would normally get very good engineers on call. We got support from the European zones, but since COVID, their support services have been significantly compromised. The quality of engineers or the quality of SLAs is not up to the mark. 

I was one of the people here in Pakistan who started the cloud. Microsoft has published three case studies of mine on the cloud during the last ten years. Over the years, I've seen that the overall support model of Microsoft Cloud has been compromised. I'd rate their support a six out of ten. 

Positive

We were using the local Active Directory previously. From day one, we've been die-hard fans of Active Directory. Until 2011 or 2012, we used the local Active Directory that was hosted in my own data center, and now, because we're in a hybrid environment, we're managing local Active Directory, and we're managing Azure Active Directory. We're managing both.

We got Azure Active Directory because we moved to Office 365, public cloud, infrastructure as a service, and software as a service. We needed a single sign-on and integration with some third-party cloud products such as SAP Ariba, SAP SuccessFactors, and Tejari. 

Last month, we did the very first integration in Pakistan with Oracle Aconex. It's one of the biggest engineering document management suites in the world. We integrated Azure Active Directory with EDMS, which was really commendable. It was something that was done for the first time in Pakistan.

We're using Azure Active Directory with Office 365, which is a public cloud. The same Azure Active Directory is integrated with Azure infrastructure's private cloud, so the same Active Directory is serving in multiple scenarios. Through the same Azure Active Directory, we have integrated with the custom applications that are hosted on other public clouds such as Oracle Aconex, SAP S4HANA, SAP Ariba, SAP SuccessFactors, and Tejari. So, we're using it in the hybrid mode to sync our local Active Directory. From that hybrid mode, it's providing authentication to the users for Office 365 and it's providing services for the users who are using Windows virtual desktop. On the other side, for the third party, we're also using Azure Active Directory.

I deployed it myself. The initial setup was complex when we were implementing it around twelve years ago, but now, it's very simple. When we started this journey, it took us six months to integrate our local Active Directory with Azure Active Directory. We worked with three different partners. Two of them failed, and then Microsoft Pakistan got involved with us. Through their Dubai-based partner, we successfully integrated our Azure Active Directory with our local, on-premises Active Directory. We got success with the third partner, but overall, it took us six months. Nowadays, the hybrid configuration and the integration of Azure Active Directory with the local Active Directory is a piece of cake.

In terms of maintenance, because it's software as a service, Microsoft is managing it for us. We don't take any backup, etc. It's just managed by Microsoft.

We got a very good ROI when we compare it with what we were using around ten years ago. It's a much improved and cost-efficient product in terms of cloud provision.

It's pretty good. We're using the native features. It's bundled with our Office 365 licenses. We aren't paying anything extra for Azure Active Directory. It's pretty good for us because it's complementary to Office 365. We're only paying for Office 365.

We checked Google Suite. We checked its identity mechanism, but it was not as per our requirements.

It's a very good product. It's a stable product. I'd highly recommend it.

Overall, I'd rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of ten.

My organization uses Microsoft Entra ID for some people who access Azure, especially for people who need Azure for different things. My organization deals with people transitioning from a standard data center environment into a cloud-based one to meet their needs. My organization has certain conditional access to certain people because we have access to government and cloud services or a commercial environment, along with different versions of each of those across different groups. I would say that most of our organization's work is just giving conditional access to people and occasionally vendors, but nothing too absurd.

I don't want to say that the product hasn't improved anything for my organization. The problem with the solution stems more or less from the fact that technology is moving ahead, and my organization needs to try to keep up with the changes, which makes it a new way of doing things that will be applicable to the future. Maybe if we could transition to certain things faster, I would have seen the product's full benefits. Since the areas of transitions related to the solution are slow, I haven't experienced the full depth of what I can do with the product.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to delegate roles to each individual resource, which is great. I think the aforementioned feature is better done in the solution itself than with an actual local AD.

I wish transitioning from Microsoft Active Directory to Microsoft Entra ID was a little easier, and I didn't have to learn so many new concepts. I faced difficulties from Micorosft's end and during the transition from Microsoft Active Directory to Microsoft Entra ID. Sometimes, some of Microsoft's documentation could be a little outdated. The product doesn't meet the organization's niche requirements, especially in our environment. Microsoft Entra ID is not a very standard product.

When I think about the trade-off I have had to go for to get the aforementioned feature, it does annoy me. For me, I can't mirror accounts with the solution. I need to consider that we have so many groups and subscriptions, and I can't just see a blanket of their different individual roles in every single resource if I create an account for someone who takes over a job in the organization. In the solution, some people might have specific roles in one resource, which might be the only thing in there. With Microsoft Entra ID, I can't view every instance, and I have to go one by one subscription all the way down, which is a huge pain when you have 400 to 500 subscriptions. The aforementioned aspects can be considered for the improvement of the solution.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for the last five years, but not at its full capacity because, in our organization, we have to ensure that we help with the migration process of different governmental agencies piece by piece since we are a multi-cloud, multi-tenant, multi-forested environment. My organization is a customer of the product.

When it comes to the technical support for the product, I have a representative who works for me, making the support good since I can have him put under fire. I have had some issues with the tool. The IT security audits that come under Microsoft Services Hub are something we needed in Microsoft Gov cloud, and there's only a certain region of Microsoft Gov cloud that supports it, meaning you cannot use Microsoft Services Hub on it, which is all fine as you just have to run it either for by line or you have to run it from within Azure's portal. I had three separate calls with Microsoft's technical support about it, and it was the third tech person who told me after looking at the ticket raised by my organization with the support that the support team had not even finished adding our ticket to their list, which to me was like an organizational issue. Apart from the aforementioned issue I faced with the support team, I feel everything else has been fine. I wouldn't go around saying that Microsoft offers bad technical support.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

As the product already existed before I joined my current organization, I was not involved in its deployment phase. I have some past experience with the deployment processes of Microsoft Entra ID and Microsoft Active Directory. The deployment process of Microsoft Entra ID was easy, and it is not anything different or terrible.

The time for deployment of the tool depends on the client or the project my organization deals with, and a lot of the clients I have worked for are pretty small teams. I haven't had to do too much in terms of deployment.

My organization hasn't considered switching to a different product, but I know that we have some AWS environments with IAM solutions.

It is easy to use the solution's offering of a single pane of glass for managing user access if you have experience with Azure for a while. During the transitioning period, the depth that revolves around the concepts of blades in Azure can be annoying, especially while attempting to relearn the new places where everything is stored. It feels like Microsoft invented a new language for their new system, but a lot of it is just like an updated version of what it was. I have many people at work who have never heard of Microsoft Entra ID and claim to use Microsoft Active Directory without realizing they are the same. Microsoft Entra ID is just a new version of Microsoft Active Directory.

As a product that offers a single pane of glass, it works great and offers consistency to our organization's security policies if I consider the little or limited Azure we have.

My organization hasn't implemented the tool over 900 other devices yet, so I don't know how it will work after that.

Microsoft Entra Verified ID is good when it comes to privacy and control of identity data. Regarding Microsoft Entra ID, my organization sees a lot of contractors and vendors that come in, which gives us confidence or at least ways to sell it to politicians who have confidence that we can do something.

My organization uses Microsoft Entra Permissions Management, but we are not too in-depth into it. I feel Microsoft Entra Permissions Management is nice. I believe that Microsoft Entra Permissions Management helps reduce risk surface. I don't like one of the top-level tenants in the product. As the product goes down into different resources or subscriptions, I see that agencies own them. Sometimes, I feel my organization's offerings look good, but when I dig into the offerings of other agencies, I realize that we are not good.

The time-saving capabilities of the solution experienced by IT administrators or the HR department in my organization have been more or less the same.

I haven't seen the budget in a way that can help me figure out if using the solution in my organization has helped save money.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use Entra for things like, multifactor authentication, user backups, registrations, and other identity management tasks. 

We use Entra ID for 3,000 users, and there are multiple third parties integrated into it. The solution is part of the fabric of our company, so it's essential. 

The solution has saved IT administrators and HR staff time. We build Power BI dashboards on top of it to provide some insights. We're feeding all of the users into that. We've built an aggregator that takes all the sign-in logs and all of that data available in Entra and surfaces it through Power BI, so we can reuse it in different parts of our organization. It makes sense to build the dashboards in Power BI, so that it's centrally available and part of a bigger data set. 

Entra's license management features have saved us money because we can allocate licenses to groups and users. We've built reports on top of that license group user information. We can see how many licenses are being used and whether it's over-provisioned. 

I like Entra's ability to integrate the Active Directory with third-party solutions. It's straightforward. I like the ability to define third-party systems and make the AD the primary identity provider.

Entra offers a single pane of glass that helps us keep our security policies consistent. It helps to drive behavior through security and role-based groups. We use privileged identity management for elevated roles in security groups. 

I started using Entra when it was still called Azure Active Directory. It has been about 10 years. 

No one would say Entra isn't scalable. Some of our deployments were for large UK government projects. One of the largest Azure Active Directory deployments was at NHS which has 2.4 million users. We run and manage the identity part of that service for the NHS and a bunch of other things. 

We're involved with some massive deployments of that critical national infrastructure, including the governance and compliance around it. That's tens of thousands of endpoints. It's the NHS, so that includes people's local doctors, hospitals, and people in the supply chain. 

I rate Microsoft support five out of 10. It's just okay. 

Neutral

Entra isn't too difficult to set up. We follow the Microsoft cloud adoption framework. There's a phase that involves aligning with best practices and making sure it's secured appropriately.

Entra includes things like multifactor authentication, conditional access, etc., so I think it justifies the cost. 

Entra is fairly priced. We get it through an E5 license, so it isn't an issue.  It also costs nothing to our customers. 

I rate Microsoft Entra ID 10 out of 10. I would recommend it if you're using Microsoft or Azure. If not, I would still think about it because creating a tenant is free. There's only a licensing cost once you start putting users on it. 

I use Microsoft Entra ID in my company for provisioning and deprovisioning identities and access.

In the organization where I work, Microsoft Entra ID helps automate the process of creating accounts and purging multiple accounts when they are no longer needed.

The most valuable components of the solution are provisioning and deprovisioning since both features work.

My organization is less familiar with some of the new tools in the market, so I don't know whether I can speak about what needs improvement in Microsoft Entra ID presently.

I have to absorb whatever I have learned about Microsoft Entra ID. I don't know if I can say what additional features need to be introduced in the product, but I can say that the product looks promising based on what I have learned about Microsoft Entra ID.

Attempts to simplify hooks to perform access management are not always easy, but in my organization, we might be able to make some progress in the future.

Microsoft's technical support has shortcomings where improvements are required.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID since 2005. My organization plans to enter into a partnership with Microsoft, but presently, we are just a customer.

Microsoft Entra Verified ID is a very stable solution.

I have not had any issues with Microsoft Entra Verified ID's scalability feature.

There are 1,50,000 end users of the solution in my organization.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

My company has been using Microsoft Entra ID since the release of its earliest version, which was in the mid-2000s.

I was involved in the original deployment or initial setup of Microsoft Entra ID in my organization, and we found it to be a complex process. In the past, my organization was involved in the migration process from a custom Oracle-based solution to Microsoft Entra ID. Microsoft Entra ID was a product that was a new acquisition for Microsoft at the time, in which some custom development work by our company's team was required.

The product is used for our enterprise, an academic medical center with many different hospitals, owing to which the tool is deployed centrally.

The solution is deployed on hybrid cloud services offered by Microsoft Azure Cloud.

The product's deployment phase was carried out with the help of my organization's in-house personnel.

My company has not used many of the new features available with the product's new prices, so I cannot speak if I have seen an ROI from the use of the product in my organization.

I have seen an ROI from the use of the solution if I consider its past usage in our organization since we were able to eliminate work that a lot of people had to do manually, like the creation or deletion of identities.

I work for an academic medical center, where there is a watch kept over every dollar spent. I do have concerns about the micro charges for different levels or features of the product.

My company did consider a product from IBM against Microsoft Entra ID during the evaluation phase. My company chose Microsoft Entra ID since we were involved with Microsoft Active Directory Domain Services. Microsoft Active Directory Domain Services was a nicely tied product with Microsoft Entra ID.

Microsoft Entra ID provides almost a single pane of glass for managing user access, but not in my organization's environment because we have a little bit of custom work to do at our end. It looks like my organization might be able to see how the solution provides a single pane of glass for managing user access in the future.

A single pane of glass affects the consistency of the security policies, as it helps reduce a lot of confusion for the IT professionals who need to work with Microsoft Entra ID. It is very confusing when IT professionals have to bounce to different URLs to find access to tools needed to do their jobs, which was an issue for me, but it looks like there have been some improvements.

I don't use Microsoft Entra Verified ID.

I do use Microsoft Entra Permissions Management, but probably not the way it is designed to be used.

The solution has helped my organization's IT admins and the HR department save a lot of time.

The solution has helped my organization save money, but I cannot quantify it.

I ardently carry out processes where I build out and test a solution and then run a proof of concept before moving to a particular product. I suggest that others who plan to use Microsoft Entra ID consider the aforementioned aspects.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

We use Azure AD to manage all endpoints, including laptops, desktops, mobile devices, such as iPads and iPhones, and users. We can disable accounts, create accounts, reset passwords, maintain access, and manage permissions.

Azure AD is essential to our organization. Our users need to use their Azure AD credentials to log into their computers every morning, and we also manage user accounts in Azure AD. As a result, we cannot function without Azure AD.

We use Entra's conditional access to restrict access to our system from overseas users. This means that users can only log in from Canada and the United States.

Our zero-trust strategy uses conditional access to verify users and prevent unexpected traffic, such as attacks from Russia. This makes our strategy more robust and secure.

We use Entra's conditional access in conjunction with Microsoft Endpoint Manager to limit user logins from Canada and the USA. We also limit devices that can log into the network to only those located in Canada.

Entra has helped our IT administrators save an hour of time per day.

Entra has helped our organization save money.

We used to use on-premises Active Directory. Now, we use Azure Active Directory. The main difference is that users can now reset their own passwords in Azure AD. This is a positive improvement, as it saves time and hassle for both users and IT staff. I believe that this has had a positive impact on our employee experience.

User and device management is the most valuable feature.

I would like Azure AD to provide features similar to check-in on-prem AD. The fetch-all service is the only one that is not currently available on Azure AD.

The technical support has room for improvement.

I have been using Azure AD for five years.

I give Azure AD's stability an eight out of ten.

I give Azure AD's scalability an eight out of ten.

The basic support from Microsoft is not good.

Negative

We previously used the on-premises Microsoft Active Directory. However, we have since switched to Azure Active Directory, which is a cloud-based solution. Azure AD is more flexible and scalable than on-premises AD, and it allows us to save money on hardware costs. This is because we no longer need to purchase and maintain our own servers. Instead, we can simply use the servers that are provided by Microsoft.

The initial deployment was straightforward and took two months to complete. We switched over to the new system and then set up a number of additional features, such as enterprise applications and multi-factor authentication. This took an additional month, for a total of three months. We followed the instructions from Microsoft step-by-step. The deployment required two full-time employees from our organization and three from our partner.

The implementation was completed with the help of an MSP.

We have seen a significant return on investment since switching to Azure AD. Our monthly costs have decreased from $5,000 to $100.

The price is affordable, and we pay around $100 per month.

Both Okta and Azure AD are great solutions. I know that many people use Okta, but my concern is that we are also using Microsoft products on the endpoint. This means that our users use Windows, and it makes more sense to use a front-end and back-end Microsoft solution.

I give Azure AD a nine out of ten.

Azure AD requires very minimal maintenance.

I recommend Azure AD. The solution is straightforward.