Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We mainly use Azure Active Directory for authentication, identity management, and single sign-on. A user can use a local Active Directory password to sign into other platforms, like Zendesk or Zoom. These on-premise users are synced to Azure Active Directory. We have some other users who only use cloud, so they don't have instances on-premise, i.e., they are pure cloud. Both of these types of users can authenticate their credentials with other applications and single sign-on. 

We use Microsoft solutions, such as Microsoft Endpoint Manager for mobile device management (MDM), Microsoft Defender, and Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). For our customers and clients, we do something similar. We also send logs from Microsoft 365 to different SIEMs.

We sync users from on-premise using AD Connect sync. We sync them to Azure Active Directory, where we have some instances. 

We have secure scores and compliance scores. These scores tell you your standpoint in terms of recommendations, vulnerabilities, etc. So, it can tell you what you need to configure to increase your security posture, then you can tell where you are. With the compliance scores, it will tell you what you need to do to improve it. The secure scores will tell you that maybe you should enable MFA for all users or that all admins should have MFA. It gives you a lot of suggestions and recommendations to improve your security posture. 

Microsoft Endpoint Manager acts as a mobile device management tool. It focuses on the firewall and does device compliance policy. There are a lot of policies that you can use to align your organization in regards to compliance and regulations. Also, there are security settings that you can enable.

In Microsoft Defender, it accesses the devices onboarded to your Microsoft Defender so you can see the vulnerabilities in terms of the applications installed on a system as well as the version of the OS that you are using. It shows you the patch management that you need to do for vulnerabilities. 

Authentication and identity management are key. For someone to authenticate your account, it is like having the password or access to your password. If someone gains unauthorized access to an account, then they can perform a lot of malicious activities, such as sending spam emails or falsifying emails, including authorizing payments.

Multi-factor authentication (MFA) has improved our customers' security posture. Multi-factor authentication has two layers of authentication, which helps in case you input your credentials into a phishing website and then it has access to your credentials. So if they use your credentials, then you have proof on your phone that was sent to the end user. 

You can also use Conditional Access to block sign-ins from other countries. For example, if someone attempts to login from Canada or the US, and your company is based in Africa or somewhere else, then it blocks that user. In this case, it will flag the user and IP as suspicious.

There is also impossible travel, which is an identity protection feature that flags and blocks. For instance, if you are signing in from California, then in the next two hours, you are logging in from Kenya. We know that a flight to Kenya couldn't possibly happen within two hours.

Admins can set password changes for 30, 60, or 90 days, whether it is on-premise or the cloud.

Sometimes, what one customer may like, another may not like it. We have had customers asking, "Why is Microsoft forcing us to do this?" For example, when you use Exchange Server on-premise, then you can customize it for your company and these customizations are unlimited. However, if you use Exchange Online or with Microsoft 365, then your ability to make modifications is limited. So, only the cloud versus is limited.

I have been using it for four years.

It is very simple to manage.

The scalability is massive. When you get your licenses, those should give you the limits of what you can do, but the limits are considerable. It should scale automatically as your workloads increase.

If enough customers have questions about something, the Microsoft product engineering team will pick it up, document, and design it, then publish it in Microsoft.

At a previous company, I was the technical lead and expert. We were Microsoft partners. So, we picked up tickets for Microsoft 365, working on different issues from eCommerce, Exchange, SharePoint, and OneDrive. 

You can maintain your previous investment in identity management solutions by just integrating them with Azure Active Directory. You can also integrate other solutions with Azure Active Directory, then use Azure Active Directory as a single sign-on.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Active Directory is a place where all your instances, users, identities are being stored. You can create users and identities, then they are stored in Active Directory. Then, Azure Active Directory is just like a cloud-based scenario. When you create users, they are there. You can join devices to your Active Directory.

You need to have the user's information: their password, email, location and ID. All those things are being stored in Azure Active Directory. 

Deployment time depends on the scope of work. For example, a single user could take about 10 minutes to deploy, if you know what you are doing.

Deployment needs just one person to do it.

It protects your identity and keeps you secure. The return on investment is that it keeps your identity from being compromised or you being scammed. That is the investment that customers pay for.

Previously, only building and global administrators could purchase subscriptions or licenses. Mid-last year, Microsoft made it so users can purchase the license online.

Microsoft business subscription is for 200 to 300 users. If you have more than 300 users, you can't purchase the business plan. You have to purchase the enterprise plan. The enterprise plan is for 301 users and above. 

Pay as you go is also available. If you pay as you go in Azure, you will be billed for whatever you use.

I know AWS has something similar.

It is an excellent solution. I would advise going for it.

I have received several complaints from different people and customers too, "Why do I have to do it two times? I want to do it just one time." However, there is a reason for it - we are increasing the security layer. That is why it takes two times, because it is organizational policy. So, they just have to comply.

Previously, admins could only release quarantined emails, so you would need to speak to the admin to release them. Now, if a user's message gets quarantined, then the end user releases it.

If you have Microsoft 365, then you have Azure AD. They go hand in hand.

I would rate this solution as 10 out of 10.

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.

We use it for access and identity management.

Microsoft Entra ID has improved the way we administer the technology. One strong capability is our ability to use single sign-on. Using identity is an important component of our security, so we have been able to consolidate. Instead of having to manage users for different applications, we use single sign-on. We use Microsoft Entra ID to be the core of identity management across all applications. We have the capability to do so, so it reduces the burden of onboarding, offboarding, and giving different permissions because we have a centralized way to handle that.

Microsoft Entra ID does a pretty good job of providing a single pane of glass for managing user access. For zero trust and the more modern security approaches, it is key to have a single pane of glass. We are able to be very regimented and have processes that are repeatable and reproducible. It provides that consistency, so it is easier to be very consistent.

Microsoft Entra ID has helped to save time for our IT administrators, but I would have a hard time quantifying that. We do not have a lot of users. We are dealing with hundreds of users and not thousands or tens of thousands of users. We are able to use logic and rules to handle most permissioning versus having to do administrative things manually. There is less touch. We touch it only when we have to troubleshoot. If we have a good set of rules, it handles what we need to handle.

The user management groups are valuable. It is a pretty basic product, but user management, in general, is valuable with the ability to differentiate between business lines and add different policies, group-based management, and dynamic user groups.

Allowing for more customization would be very useful. There is a limited metadata capability. When you look at a user, there are only six pieces of information you can see, but organizations are way more complex, so having that metadata available and being able to use that for dynamic user groups and other policies would be very helpful.

We have been using Microsoft Entra ID for six years.

For the most part, it is very stable. I am not worried about its stability.

It is very scalable.

Typically, the people who provide us support want to provide good service, but overall, there is a lot of room for improvement because the subject matter experts basically follow the script, and sometimes, they neglect to listen to what we are asking for. We would have already gone through the steps, and we explain it, but we have to repeat ourselves multiple times.

In my past experiences, I have used Okta and the other ones. In my current organization, I have not used any other solution. When I came in, thankfully, we had Azure AD. We stuck with it, and we made that the primary. It is not perfect for sure, but it works very well in the Microsoft ecosystem. It works well together with Intune and other Microsoft solutions. Because we have a single stack in Microsoft, it works very well with Intune. In the past, I have had different identity and access management, and then you have interoperability issues. Even though Microsoft Entra ID is not perfect, there is less of that. You get one vendor, and usually, things work out eventually.

I was not involved in its deployment in my current organization, but I was spearheaded into bringing from a basic use case to a lot more security and a lot more automation and manageability.

Initially, the initial setup was very basic, and then we modernized it and improved it. We used a lot more policy, and dynamic user groups were a big aspect of that single sign-on in the app management, app registration, and various other aspects.

We took a little bit of external help to make sure that our approach was optimized.

It is difficult to quantify that. Because there is the cost of switching, usually, it ends up being a wash.

Pricing could always be better. You pay the premium for Microsoft. Sometimes, it is worth it, and at other times, you wish to have more licensing options, especially for smaller companies.

We are currently not evaluating other options.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID an eight out of ten.

We migrated about 3,000 computers from on-prem Active Directory to Azure Active Directory or Azure AD. 

These are still early days, but we are certain that it will improve our organization as we move away from on-prem Active Directory.

It provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, but we have to get more into it to be able to say that for sure. We have got so many different tools. It would be nice to have less tools. We are starting to take a look at how to consolidate tools.

It will definitely help to save time for our IT administrators.

It has not yet helped to save our organization money. It is too early for that.

The way the laptops are joined is valuable. We can take advantage of that in terms of being able to log in and do things. It is easier to change passwords or set things up.

I would like to dive into some of the things that we saw today around the workflows at this Microsoft event. I cannot say that they need to make it better because I do not have much experience with it, but something that is always applicable to Microsoft is that they need to be able to integrate with their competitors. If you look at IDP, they do not integrate with Okta.

I have been using this solution for about six months. It was not called Entra ID then. It was called Azure AD.

Our dealings have been fine. We do not deal with them so much. When we have to open something, our account managers help us out.

We were on on-prem AD. We moved to Azure AD because of a merger. We were purchased by a larger company, so we are moving on to their domain.

It was in the middle of the road. It was not the easiest thing, and it was also not the hardest thing.

We took the help of a company. They did a good job. They helped us to move a huge amount of data.

It is in line. Because we are so early, we have not had to come back on a cycle where we are having to negotiate again.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID a nine out of ten. It is very good.

Microsoft Authenticator is a third-party application used to authenticate users in our Microsoft environment, such as accessing emails or applications like Excel, Word, or any other application. It is also used for online login purposes. The configuration process is simple from the admin side; we just need to enable it for the user. The user will receive a notification on their mobile device and then needs to download the Microsoft Authenticator app. They can add their account by entering their username and password. Once this is done, the configuration is complete.

While using any applications in the environment, users need to authenticate using Microsoft Authenticator. They will receive a one-time password that expires in thirty seconds, which they must use for authentication. One advantage of using Microsoft Authenticator is that it ensures the security of user accounts. Even if someone tries to hack or authenticate into another person's Microsoft account, they will be unable to do so without the password. The user will receive a notification if someone attempts to access their account and can choose whether to grant them access or not. If any unauthorized access is detected, we will investigate to identify the person behind the authentication attempt.

Microsoft Authenticator is highly secure. It is connected to its own servers. Using this application employs encryption methods, and the user has the right to access it. Additionally, we can utilize the biometric fingerprint tool for authentication, ensuring that only one person has access to it. This feature is extremely beneficial.

The cost of licensing always has room for improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Authenticator for three years.

Microsoft Authenticator is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. We downloaded it from the Google Play store and used a name and password. That's all it takes, and we're ready to go. The configuration duration is set on an admin site, but the actual configuration must be done on the end devices themselves. This can include mobile devices, tablets, or any other device that we can use, and takes about ten minutes to complete.

We have observed a 60 percent return on investment with Microsoft Authenticator, which provides us with peace of mind, knowing that there is no unauthorized access occurring.

Microsoft Authenticator is included in the package when we purchase a license from Microsoft.

I rate Microsoft Authenticator ten out of ten.

We have 120 users. The solution is used daily and is required whenever a Microsoft account needs authentication to ensure that only the data owner or email owner has the proper authentication to access the mailbox or application.

I will advise people to continue using the Microsoft Authenticator because it provides security and data protection. From a cybersecurity perspective, it is beneficial to use the Microsoft Authenticator for the authentication of Microsoft products.

We primarily use the solution for most of our enterprise identity management. 

It's improved our company through the security policies. It's helped improve our security posture. 

It's pretty easy to implement. In most of the apps nowadays, it has the ability to use multifactor authentication, SSO.

The control is great. It offers good conditional access.

It helps with managing user access via one pane of glass in most cases. 

The security policies we are applying are pretty well structured. 

The solution is nice to use. Microsoft did a good job.

My assessment on Microsoft EntraID admin center for managing all identity and access as our organization. It's great. It's very well organized, pretty straightforward, and easy to use. It's not just that it's easy to use, it's very intuitive. Everything is easy to find. 

We use Microsoft Entra ID conditional access features and improve the robustness of our zero-trust strategy to verify users. 

The permission management feature is good. 

The visibility and control are very good. The whole intro ID concept is pretty intuitive. Even if you have never used this and you have some experience in IT, you will be able to handle the solution easily.

It's helped our IT department save time. It also helps with speeding up processes. I can't speak to the exact amount of time saved per week, however.

The solution helps the company save money. 

It's positively affected the employee user experience. 

It's just been renamed. That said, I can't speak of room for improvement. There may be areas that could be better, however, I haven't thought too much about that. 

I would change the device access a bit. It's very difficult. I would add some features. I would like to be able to authenticate Wi-Fi users using the Azure ID. However, my understanding is it needs to be from both sides, from the vendor that is creating devices for the Wi-Fi and for the networking part and Microsoft. 

The company has been using the solution since before I arrived. I have used it for around four or five years. 

The solution is stable. I've never seen big issues. It's pretty much a stable product. 

Sometimes Microsoft has small issues, however, nothing that would cause the entire company to not be able to work for a whole day. 

More than 1,000 people are currently using the solution. 

It is a scalable solution for sure. 

I've never used technical support. 

I've used a few different solutions. Mostly I've used Active Directory. It does the same thing; it has just been renamed. 

I was not a part of the implementation. It was done before I joined the company. 

It may require a bit of maintenance, however, it's not a task that is part of my department. 

I don't deal with pricing. It may state the cost online. 

I did not evaluate other options. 

I'm a user.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I'd advise others to use it. Even the free tier has a lot of features that even a small company would benefit from. 

We use it as the Active Directory on the cloud. We have the systems on-premises and on the cloud. We connect the AD data to Azure. We have a single sign-on service on multi-cloud. We use the single sign-on feature on, for example, AWS.

In terms of the version, we use it as a service, and it is always updated to the latest version. 

Microsoft Entra ID helps to synchronize information from on-premise Active Directory. There are security features such as multifactor authentication. We can also use a single sign-on to connect with the other application on the cloud. 

It helps our admins to have more security. It is helpful for authentication methods, log checking, and audit trails in case of security concerns. However, it has not saved them time.

Microsoft Entra ID has not helped to save our organization money, but it helps to improve security.

The security features, multi-factor authentication, and service management features are valuable.

Microsoft Entra ID provides a single pane of glass for managing user access. Its menus are properly categorized, and they make it easy to use for our work and processes.

One thing that they need to improve is the cost. It already has a lot of features, but more protection of the identity would be beneficial for customers.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. In our environment, we mostly have Microsoft solutions such as Microsoft 365, email, OneDrive, SharePoint, Power Apps, etc. Entra ID is deployed across multiple locations for multiple users. We have a Microsoft 365 license for all employees. We have two admins who take care of configuration and monitoring for security and data loss prevention. 

We have plans to increase its usage.

I have not contacted their support.

We did not use any other similar solution previously.

I was not involved in its deployment. 

It is costly.

I would recommend this solution to others. Overall, I would rate Microsoft Entra ID an eight out of ten.

It's something that we use every day. We're migrating all of our customers over to it.

We use it for Office 365 and Azure services.

It's a cloud service. You do not depend on local identities. You can just synchronize the identities. It gives you the opportunity to use the security services that come with Office 365 and Azure. 

It does offer a single pane of glass for getting into all applications. However, we have some customers that have a hybrid environment and it depends on what applications and if the client wants them authenticated with Azure or not. In general, it's been positive for the final user experience.

We do have to manage identities on-premises in Azure and have one point of entry and the solution allows for that.

We use conditional access. That's a must for customers - to be able to verify users and devices. It helps with initiating a zero-trust policy. It's one of the main functionalities we really like. You can get granular with the policies in terms of access. 

We use conditional access in conjunction with Endpoint Manager. We also push Endpoint Manager as a solution to work with devices. That's also something that we try to push to the customers in any project. Most of the time, they go with it and like the idea of being merged with which are Endpoint Manager. Sometimes there are some customers, small customers, that maybe don't want to use that. Our position is to always use an endpoint manager.

It's helped out IT managers a lot in terms of the features on offer. I'm not sure of the exact amount of time that has been saved in general. I'm not involved in the day-to-day management from a customer's perspective. 

It's had a positive effect on the user experience. I'd rate the improvement nine out of ten. 

Support could be improved.

Okta has had more time in the business than Microsoft. I hope, in the roadmap, Microsoft eventually offers the same features as Okta. It will take some more time to mature. 

I've been using the solution for five years.

The solution is scalable. 

Customer support is good. However, it could be better sometimes. They do answer fast, however, the resolution itself is not fast. The first level of support will most likely have to move the issue to level two or three technicians and that process makes the resolution take longer.

Positive

I did not previously use a different solution. I deal strictly with Microsoft. I don't deal with any other companies. I'm dedicated to Microsoft. 

I was involved in the deployment process. It's easy for someone who's done it many times. 

In my department, we have ten to 15 colleagues that can handle these migrations or synchronizations. 

It's an easy product to maintain. 

We do have a customer that has Okta, and while we don't deal with it directly, we know what it does. We don't use it. Okta has specific features that are different from this product, however, it's not something we sell. For example, Microsoft can synchronize users from local to Azure, and not vice versa. Okta can do that, however. Also, the management lifecycle feature in Microsoft isn't as robust as Okta. 

Okta does have a lot of models, as does Microsoft. In both cases, depending on what you need, there would be a different license. 

There are not too many companies that have Okta in Spain, however, those that have would have many environments across AWS, Google, et cetera - not just Microsoft.

We're integrators. We don't use the solution ourselves. 

We do not use Permissions Management. I'm not sure if it is one functionality or a combination of several. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We sync up our on-premise Active Directory with Azure AD and use it for app registration. All of our cloud-based DevOps activities use Azure Active Directory.

Azure Active Directory has many automation capabilities, and you can apply policies on top. You can do a lot of things with these combinations and integrate other tools like PingFederate. We've likely saved some money, but I don't know how much. 

The solution has made our environment more controlled and robust. At the same time, functions become more challenging for users when you add more controls and multi-factor authentication. However, these measures are essential when you're dealing with a complex environment that crosses multiple regions and cloud platforms. 

I like Azure Active Directory's integration with GT Nexus, and it improves our overall security. Azure AD enables us to manage user access from a single pane of glass. We use single sign-on and multifactor authentication. Teams are required to have Authenticator downloaded on their devices. 

We use Azure AD's conditional access feature to fine-tune access controls and implement a zero-trust policy using authentication tokens. The calling application needs to verify those tokens. The tokens contain information that the application needs to verify. Every application or user needs to be registered in the system to access it.

In Azure AD, applications either use the managed identity or ARBAC for permission control, and we use SaaS on top of that. Policies can be used if there is anything else infrastructure or access-related. 

Permission management works the same way across all cloud platforms. You can have granular or course-grade permissions. It depends on what you want to use and how you want to use it. I'm on Azure, so I know how they use it. 

Azure AD could be more robust and adopt a saturated model, where they can offer unlimited support for a multi-cloud environment.

I have used Azure AD for two years. 

I rate Microsoft's support a nine out of ten. We are preferred partners, so we get high-priority support. 

Positive

I rate Azure Active Directory an eight out of ten.

We use Azure AD to implement conditional access when using Microsoft Network (MSN) services. Our infrastructure is primarily on-prem, and we operate our email in a hybrid environment and use the solution for continuity between our on-prem and cloud landscapes.

The solution improved our organization, especially in terms of security control. Overall, we're 65-70% satisfied with the product.

The most valuable feature is Conditional Access, and we use it extensively.

Azure AD provides a single pane of glass for managing user access; we integrated multiple APIs and use single sign-on for all of our Microsoft products. I can't speak in universal terms, but we had some positive feedback from our users regarding user experience.  

We use the Conditional Access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls, an excellent feature we use to enhance the security of all the machines connected to our domain. Users cannot access long-term data, data from untrusted devices, or data on connected personal devices.  

We use Azure AD Verified ID, which is a good feature for privacy and control of identity data; it offers a good level of secrecy. 

We've been using the solution for over six years now. 

The product is stable. 

The scalability isn't an issue; it depends on our license.

We previously used Microsoft's technical support, which was excellent; they were very responsive. Now, we use a CSP, and their support is lacking, so I rate them five out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward, and a partner was present to assist us during the implementation. We have around 250 users, and the solution doesn't require any maintenance.

The product's price is in the midrange. 

I rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Azure AD helped to save some time for our IT admins but not for our HR department, as they don't currently have access to the tool.

I recommend the product to those considering it, though it depends on the use case and requirements. If Azure AD has featured you don't need, then going with one of the cheaper competitors could be a better option.