Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

The primary use case for Microsoft Entra ID is authentication, allowing internal employees and guest users to log into our system.

Microsoft Entra ID has simplified central management, including administration and an overview of all logins and user profiles. It simplifies logins, not only for internal users but also for guests. We don't need to manage a lot of party sign-on. It has dramatically decreased phishing and other hacking attempts. 

It has improved our approach to defending against nation-state attacks and token theft by allowing us to enable MFA and other out-of-the-box capabilities easily. We've also reduced complaints and changed user behavior. It takes them some time to get used to it, but we educate them on how to use the built-in security features.   

The most valuable feature for us is the B2C functionality of Microsoft Entra ID, which is essential due to our need for external and internal users to log into our system.

Currently, Microsoft Entra ID meets our needs. I could not think of any areas for improvement or additional features for the next release.

I have used Entra ID for three to four years.

The stability of Microsoft Entra ID is satisfactory.

Microsoft Entra ID is scalable.

I rate Microsoft support eight out of 10. Internally, we have a feedback system for our customer service. While it may not be perfect, there are noticeably fewer customer complaints.

Positive

We did not use a different solution before Microsoft Entra ID. Since we are deeply embedded in the Microsoft ecosystem, it was the natural choice.

The initial setup was not difficult. 

We did not use an integrator, reseller, or consultant for deployment.

I am confident that we have seen a return on investment, but I have not calculated it. Microsoft Entra ID reduces risks and the need to do things manually.

Microsoft's pricing and licensing are difficult to understand. We engage with Microsoft partners regularly, but Microsoft's frequent rebranding complicates the process for us in the industry.

Microsoft Entra ID was a straightforward choice due to our integration within the Microsoft ecosystem.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID eight out of 10. We are generally satisfied, although understanding the solution fully can be challenging. Once we have the knowledge, implementation becomes easy, but initially, it can be time-consuming.

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 used Azure AD for a role-based customer access mechanism. We implemented a single tenant, single sign-on for users of the application. We gave them a sign-on feature with OpenID Connect.

Previously we had to manually create the authentication server, but when we used Azure AD, we got the server directly from Azure. I didn't have to design the server.

We were also able to filter on the domain for the client I was working for.

In addition, we used Azure AD's Conditional Access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls. That was pretty useful because we didn't have to do much because we had attributes like authorized tags. And we configured scope, meaning who can access what, in the manifest. It was not very complicated.

And Azure ID has definitely helped save us time. Earlier, we had to depend on the infrastructure team, a different team, to manage the Active Directory permissions. But now, most of the time, the developers have access in the portal. It is saving us about 40 percent of our time.

The most valuable features of Azure ID are the single sign-on and OpenID Connect authentication.

Also, it was very nice that the documentation, the articles and help, on how to implement what we were trying to do, were available freely on the site, making it easy to develop. We did two or three sprints because things worked. Most of the time was spent on development and testing. But the deployment was easy.

Maybe I don't have enough experience, but when you fix the rules and permissions, working directly on the manifest, you really need to have in-depth knowledge. If there were a graphical user interface to update the manifest, that would be good. For example, if I want to grant access to HR versus an admin, I have to specifically write that in the manifest file to create the various roles. That means I'm coding in the manifest file. A graphical user interface would really help.

I have been using Azure AD for two-plus years.

The stability is 95 percent. We don't have any issues with it.

Of course it's scalable and that's why we choose the platform. We only have two regions in the load balancer. We have not gone beyond that, so we have not faced an issue.

We deployed it in multiple locations for our customer.

We haven't contacted Microsoft support.

I have played a small role in deploying Azure AD, but I have not been involved in the migration process. Overall, the deployment is easy. It took us 20 to 25 days, including fixing issues. That was normal, nothing unusual.

Regarding maintenance, the team I'm on does application maintenance. For Azure, we have a cloud admin who looks at the Azure portal for things like billing, access management, and admin work.

Some people use SAML technology for single sign-on. Although I haven't used it, it seems a bit complex. I started working directly with Azure AD OpenID Connect to a single tenant, or Azure AD B2B or B2C, and it was very smooth. It was not much of a challenge. Most of the complex things are taken care of by the Azure AD login. Usually, you don't need to do a deep dive into what is happening internally. 

Microsoft is like a "hovercraft", as opposed to scuba diving. With Microsoft, you can use the "hovercraft". Without touching the river you can cross it.

I have not explored many other competitive products, like GCP or AWS. I am a supporter of Microsoft products.

With Verified ID, things were secure. In recent news, there has been some hacking due to some developer using an email ID as opposed to OpenID, but our team did not use email IDs. Even if we were using email IDs for single sign-on, the user still needed to sign up with a password, so it was not possible to impersonate someone else.

The user experience, the interface, is very smooth. We have never had any problems with the single sign-on.

When applications are hosted on Azure, you should use the advantages of Azure AD.

We use the Authenticator app on our mobile phones and to authenticate for Office 365. We also provide consulting services and recommend Microsoft Authenticator to clients looking for an MFA solution.

The solution improved our and our clients' security; end users are more confident knowing that their information is confidential. Strategic users, VIPs, and admins are protected from potential attacks because their authentication goes through Microsoft Authenticator.

The product has significantly increased our security maturity and gives us comfort knowing we have security in a good, affordable solution.

We have a history of all our authentications and excellent integration with the Microsoft solutions we use at our company. It runs smoothly in Windows and macOS.

I want to see more features to improve security, such as integrated user behavior analysis.

We have been using the solution for two years. 

The tool is stable, we haven't had any issues regarding stability. 

Scaling is easy as the product is hosted in the cloud; it's a robust and trustworthy solution.

Currently, we have 100 end users in our company, and we have some clients with around 1000 end users of Microsoft Authenticator.

We never needed to contact technical support as we have never had any problems, so I can't comment on that.

We previously used JumpCloud before migrating to Microsoft Authenticator, and we did that because it's more affordable and has better integration with Office 365 and the other Microsoft products we implement.

The setup was straightforward. We made an implementation plan and transitioned from using MFA via email and SMS messages to using Microsoft Authenticator.

Our security team is responsible for all our security solutions, and they take care of the maintenance, which I understand to be relatively light.

We have a Security Operation Center in our company. Another company using the same solution without a team like ours may require several hours a month to manage the solution.

We implemented it in-house since we are a consulting services company.

We think the solution is excellent and provides a return on our investment.

I would advise implementing the solution to VIPs and admins; it's affordable, effective, and efficient. I would say training staff on properly using the tool is also essential.

We decided to go straight for the Microsoft offering since we use Office 365.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

When we deployed Microsoft Authenticator for our clients, we initially had some requests for training. We delivered the training, and the end users could adapt to it; the transition was smooth.

The solution is extensively used within our organization.

We use it for authentication. Where we have cloud services, it syncs with Active Directory on-prem. We have about 1,800 people using it.

It's a very scalable solution.

The ability to manage and authenticate against on-premises solutions would be beneficial.

We have been using Azure Active Directory for about four years.

We have had very little requirement for technical support. It's a cloud solution.

We didn't use a different solution. We brought this in when we went into what was called Microsoft 365 in those days.

The setup was pretty straightforward. In terms of maintaining it, we have a team of six infrastructure engineers, and Azure AD is just one of the systems that they manage.

We did it in-house.

It's included within a wider bundle of Microsoft 365 products.

You need to make sure you've thought through how you're going to deal with your on-prem applications because having a hybrid solution like ours brings some challenges.

Ultimately, we will move completely into Azure AD, but we have a lot of on-prem applications and you can't use Azure Active Directory with them. Until we remove those applications and make things cloud-only, we will still need a hybrid solution.

We use Azure Active Directory to add authentication for users when they sign into the applications. We also use it to provide single sign-on (SSO) to applications.

What I like most about Azure Active Directory is its SSO (single sign-on) feature, as we have a community of users with different IDs and passwords, and this feature helps integrate all these. 

I've been using Azure Active Directory since 2016.

Azure Active Directory is a very stable solution.

Azure Active Directory is scalable.

The technical support for this solution is fine.

Installing this solution was seamless, but it took time for it to complete. It took one month.

We used an integrator to deploy Azure Active Directory.

Azure Active Directory has different licensing plans. We're on a yearly subscription. It is expensive, but if you look at the technical benefits it provides, the price for it is decent. If the cost of the license could be lowered, then it would be better.

Azure Active Directory is a cloud-based solution in which we have done our integration with our applications.

We currently have five or six different teams using this solution. We have three people with admin rights, 3 technicians, and a technical team. Some users have admin rights, e.g. general admin rights, while some have basic rights.

Our plan to increase the usage of Azure Active Directory depends on how many new employees will join the company. It could happen.

I'm recommending Azure Active Directory to other people who want to start using it because it meets requirements.

I'm giving Azure Active Directory a score of 10 out of 10.

We use the Azure portal to create users, assign rights, build policies, etc. I'm not an administrator for that part of our system but that is basically what we use Azure AD for.

Conditional access has helped us to better provide more security for our users and MFA has helped us to provide more security for users who are working from home. They use their own personal devices.

Azure AD has helped us to provide security for applications that I didn't have access to.

This product has improved our overall security posture. Everybody is working from home using a VPN. We recently migrated everybody to MFA, which is required to connect using the VPN. People are now more aware of their passwords and overall, gives them better security.

Using the Self Service Password Reset functionality has helped to improve our end-user experience because they no longer have to deal with the service desk to do so. It also helps the service desk because it relieves them of the need to help users when it comes to password changes, allowing them to focus on other things.

We use all of the services that are offered by Azure AD. We use Azure AD Connect, SSPR, app registration, application proxy, and more. We use everything for different services that include conditional access, authentication methods, etc.

Conditional Access is a helpful feature because it allows us to provide better security for our users.

I would like to see improvements made when it comes to viewing audit logs, sign-in logs, and resource tags.

We have been using Azure Active Directory for approximately six years.

In my opinion, the on-premises deployment is still king with respect to stability.

We are able to control what's happening there, unlike the cloud instances when the service is down. If Azure AD is down then it will affect the ability of our users to log in.

Both Azure AD and the on-premises Active Directory solutions are scalable.

We have approximately 30,000 objects hosted in Azure AD. Usage will be increased as need be, as we have more users and we have more objects to add.

I would rate Microsoft support and eight out of ten.

Support provides access to good resources and good backend tools that we can use to resolve issues.

We migrated to Azure Active Directory from Windows Active Directory.

In my previous organization, I was involved in the implementation and it was very straightforward. It was straightforward in the sense that we didn't encounter any major issues because we were already using Windows Active Directory. The only issue we had was that we had to move people in batches, and not at the same time.

Our deployment took approximately one month.

As part of the implementation strategy, we first moved our Exchange to Office 365. This was the initial migration of users from on-premises to Azure AD. The primary phase was to start using Office 365 for our email instead of Exchange.

We migrated from our on-premises Exchange solution to Azure AD with our in-house team. There are some of us in the infrastructure team, plus my manager.

In terms of our overall Azure experience, I can see that this solution yields a return on our investment. However, it is difficult to quantify.

The cost is billed on a per-user licensing basis.

We did not evaluate any other options.

I think that overall, using Azure AD is very straightforward.

My advice for anybody who is considering Azure AD is to look at the products, understand the role of AD, and see how it works in their environment. Then, before they roll out, test it well.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this product is that it helps with better organization and allocation of rights and security.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The solution is our main identity provider and federation platform. We use it for authentication and for federations, for some provisioning, and a little bit of governance.

It's a quite comprehensive solution and it scales quite well within our required scale as well, which is very useful.

The product has helped to improve our security posture. The Azure stack has built out a lot of analytics features. Now, we can more effectively investigate issues. 

The solution has positively affected our end-user experience by improving our usability and reducing friction.

The solution has certain limitations. For example, it has very little governance functionality. This is, of course, a choice made by Microsoft to see which areas they want to have deep functionality, and which areas they believe are more profitable for them. 

We've been using the solution probably since the mid-'90s when it was invented.

The solution has generally been quite stable. They've had some problems with the MFA and other things, however, they are a lot better at keeping the system stable than we are.

What we have seen is that we are running into some of the limitations of scalability. That said, we are more than half a million or 700,000 internal users at the moment. There are relatively few organizations globally that are as big as we are.

We're seeing, for example, that the parcel reset, to sync parcel reset from on-premise into the system is challenging. It's more than the 30 seconds that you typically want. It's even sometimes more than the two minutes that Microsoft promises in their SLAs.

We see that our syncing is slow. We have to run it every three hours, which causes problems with being able to service our business efficiently.

Those are the main problems I've seen. On top of that, there are certain features that have run into challenges, for example, the AEDS is not fast enough.

Technical support is actually quite good. It's rather rare that we have problems with support.

They have been very good at informing us about when they have outages. That's something we really appreciate as it saves us a lot of time. If something on their side is broken, they tell us so that we don't have to look to find any problems in our systems. That's one reason I really like the way they've been handling things.

The system we used before was IBM ISAM.

The ISAM setup was on-premise and it's very expensive to run and maintain. The support for Microsoft is much better, which is an additional advantage for us.

The initial setup was complex.

We have half a million users from 20 different offices. They've all got different ways of wanting to do things, including the way we have to build the federation infrastructure, for example.

This has been a four-year project, and we're probably going to continue with it for the next year or as long as we'll be using the product.

The initial build we did was a six-month build.

Our implementation strategy was to delegate sections, including delegating identity and federation setup.

We have five full-time personnel that handle the maintenance aspect of the solution. We have outsourced the actual hands-on maintenance. This firm has a couple of engineers, an architect, and an engagement lead. We have three solution delivery managers on hand, however, they do other tasks as well and are not necessarily dedicated to AD.

We used a systems integrator to assist with the initial setup. 

The product is priced quite well. The way that Microsoft prices per user and month is quite attractive to us. The level of the license cost is quite good as well.

We did not evaluate other options. Choosing Active Directory was a management choice. 

We are just a customer and an end-user.

I'd advise those considering the solution to find a good partner to work with. You do need to have an experienced system integrator with you when you do the implementation. The integrator we brought on did a good job on our side.

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