Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We use the solution for single sign-on, provisioning, de-provisioning, conditional access, and identity governance.

The access governess feature improves our compliance.

Privilege Identity Management is the most valuable feature.

The licensing and support are expensive and have room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

The support is really good.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. The time required for deployment will vary depending on the features that we plan to use. Typically, two to three weeks should be sufficient for deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We have seen a return on investment.

I give the cost a three out of ten. The licensing is expensive.

We evaluated Google Cloud Identity.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Two to three engineers are required for the Maintenance. The majority of the maintenance is completed by Microsoft.

I recommend the solution to others.

We deployed the solution across multiple geographical areas.

We use it for identity and access management for cloud-based applications.

A couple of features are valuable, but the one that comes across the most to me is multi-factor authentication. That is huge because, with the promise of cloud—the ease and flexibility—comes a challenge of security. That means organizations are quite susceptible to cyber security threats and attacks. Nowadays, because assets have moved from the on-premises environment to the cloud, identity has become a new parameter. 

MFA is the most valuable feature because it only takes threat actors who keep guessing the password—even a password with a high degree of complexity, given all the tools available to crack them—to gain access. Then they are able to steal identity information and all the digital assets of an organization. 

We, ourselves, experienced a "near miss" but we were able to detect it at a very early stage and then immediately implement multi-factor authentication, which of course means that in addition to the regular user ID and password, there's another key requirement for validating and verifying the true identity. That's been very valuable to us and to our clients.

We also use Entra’s Conditional Access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls. It's all about taking a further step and layering additional controls to prevent unwanted access. It helps with Zero Trust, ensuring that we can protect assets. The entire paradigm is to make sure that you do not grant access to any potential user without verifying and properly validating who that entity is. That's most invaluable because you can identify a set of conditions that are unique to the organization. They can be related or linked to the profile of the organization and, based on that, you can grant access. Microsoft, from what we've seen, is at the forefront. They're actually spot-on with that.

Using wild imagination, I am thinking about to what extent AAD can integrate with products in a seamless way, such as applications that are running on-premises and making use of on-premises directory services. The most common, of course, is Azure Active Directory Domain Services. To what extent can it be used to replace the on-premises Active Directory Domain Services? Even though they are similar in concept, they are totally separate products. 

I would like to see applications that make use of on-premises Active Directory Domain Services have the ability to also seamlessly make use of Azure Active Directory.

And when it comes to identity and access life cycle management for applications that are run on-premises, as well as access governance, if those kinds of capabilities could be built into Azure Active Directory, that would be good.

I have been using Azure Active Directory since 2015.

It's very stable. I don't think I can recall a major outage of Microsoft's products or services. 

There could be outages impacting other services, and over time, you do experience degradation. But what makes it work is that Microsoft has a lot of resilience built into its cloud architecture.

It's highly scalable. I've worked on projects where we have to deploy Active Directory for in excess of 12,000 users.

More than 90 percent of the people in our organization are using Azure Active Directory.

Overall, I'm satisfied. In some cases, there are incidents that take some time to resolve, but those are more exceptions than they are the rule. We seem to find such cases when we have situations with on-premises workloads, technologies that are not yet in the cloud.

But for the most part, in recent times, on average we tend to have quicker resolutions, relatively speaking, for issues that have to do with the cloud product. 

What I consider to be the aspect that makes the experience good for us is that we get support for all the products. We have access to Premier Support and that enhances the quality of our experience.

Neutral

It's quite easy to set up.

The time needed to set up Azure Active Directory is a function of the environment. For simple deployments, it can be done within hours or within a day. But for complex environments, it might take anywhere from two weeks and up. You need to go through an environment assessment and make use of a project delivery framework.

For example, suppose a customer already has on-premises Active Directory services, and the requirement is to deploy or implement a hybrid identity architecture. That means there are workloads on-premises and in the cloud, and the customer wants to use the same identity scheme or single sign-on. Those are the type of requirements that determine how long it will take to get Azure Active Directory set up.

Deployment generally requires a project manager, an engagement manager, and an architect; a minimum of three people. And if there are other specific solution domains that require specialist skills, it could be four.

There is zero maintenance. The focus, in my own experience, is typically around security: how you're monitoring the environment to ensure that it's still secure. And when there are incidents, to what extent, and how quickly, you can triage and pinpoint and remediate to keep the infrastructure secure? But the actual is maintenance is zero.

It will save us money eventually, even though that's not the case now. For example, for HR, with onboarding and exits, we're beginning to see that this is an area where Entra can help us manage the life cycle of identities. The convenience that comes with that, and how that also helps ensure security and compliance, are areas that Entra can help us with.

The pricing of Azure Active Directory is competitive. By default, the product exists in almost every Microsoft cloud product. But it then depends on the features that a customer really wants to make use of. The extent of the security requirements will inform what kind of plan will be suitable for the customer's situation.

As a business, we have always been cloud-native, so we've always been making use of Azure Active Directory. The very fact that that's what drives our productivity platform, both for ensuring that employees are well engaged and they can deliver on productivity, and meet customer requirements and demands, means we haven't looked at alternatives.

Regarding Entra, the expectation is that when it is deployed, the employee experience should be better. We haven't started exploiting all the features of Entra. It makes use of the core Active Directory: identity and access management, conditional access, et cetera. But we're not making use of all its features at the moment. We hope to implement them in the near future.

Overall, I'm satisfied.

My company is using Microsoft Authenticator for two-factor authentication for apps and services. The tool is deployed in various geographic locations globally. It is used by product development, product engineers, consulting teams, and some senior-level stakeholders within the organization.

Authentication and security are the primary concerns in our organization. Through Microsoft Authenticator, we provide authorization to the right people so that only eligible people can access an application. We can verify that all users using each application are valid and verified through the two-factor authentication provided by Microsoft Authenticator. We have some Azure cloud-based applications where users log in, and we need to ensure that the right people are authenticated and have the right roles in our organization. These are the ways Microsoft Authenticator benefits our organization and serves our organization's purposes.

What I like about Microsoft Authenticator is that it has good features. I also like that the tool is straightforward to use. Microsoft Authenticator also has a good UI that's very simple to use.

I also like that I didn't find any limitations or negative aspects from the features of the tool because Microsoft Authenticator is not an extensive application. It has a two-factor based authentication which validates the user through the password, then it approves authentication.

Microsoft Authenticator can improve their notifications because sometimes, my team doesn't receive notifications about app updates and authentication failures.

I've been using Microsoft Authenticator for more than two years.

Microsoft Authenticator is a stable and reliable tool. My company has used it for more than two years, so I can say it's highly reliable. As the tool is used for solving security issues, it's a secure solution, and I didn't see any problems, security-wise.

My company hasn't scaled up Microsoft Authenticator because it's just for two-factor authentication. You just approve or disapprove authentication on your enterprise applications. You'll only be required to scale Microsoft Authenticator when you simultaneously have at least one hundred to two hundred applications and multiple authentication requests come in.

Support for Microsoft Authenticator was very helpful. Support is available 24x7, and I didn't find any issues with support. I'd rate the support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We used Google Authenticator and switched to Microsoft Authenticator because we migrated our applications to Microsoft Azure. We also have some Microsoft Office 365 applications and other Microsoft workspace and Office solutions, so we wanted our products under the same Microsoft umbrella. Microsoft Authenticator, a Microsoft product, was our first choice, and it was a good fit for authentication purposes.

I'm a user, administrator, and contract negotiator for Microsoft Authenticator. I'm also part of the implementation team, and I found the initial setup for this tool straightforward. It doesn't require an advanced level of technical knowledge, and it took around three to four days for the complete implementation and deployment of Microsoft Authenticator.

Microsoft Authenticator was implemented in-house.

Microsoft Authenticator is a free product.

Microsoft Authenticator doesn't require any maintenance. Microsoft takes care of upgrades and version changes.

My advice to others looking into implementing Microsoft Authenticator is to go ahead. I highly recommend Microsoft Authenticator to prospective buyers, especially those using Microsoft products. Microsoft Authenticator is the perfect solution for two-factor authentication.

My rating for Microsoft Authenticator is ten out of ten.

My company is a customer of Microsoft.

Active Directory is used for authentication and provisioning for users and devices and granting them access.

We're in a hybrid mode where we still have on-prem controllers as well.

The beauty is that it affords us more of an anytime, anywhere operation because we're not tied to an on-prem solution. From a customer experience standpoint, users don't really care about what goes on behind the scenes technically. They just want their lives to be easier. Now that they can access Office 365 globally, anywhere from any device, that's huge. That helps productivity and gives them the ability to get work done. And having to manage fewer passwords and user IDs is another true advantage.

The solution gives users seamless integration to all these products and streamlines the user experience. That's definitely been a pro.

In this completely upside-down world that we're in these days, with most people elsewhere and very few people in the office, it gives us tremendous flexibility for keeping people productive and providing them with access to the data and tools that they need to perform their jobs. It has given us the opportunity to move to this more mobile environment.

Also, the SSO aspect improves our security posture because people aren't writing down or creating a list of all their passwords. Now they only have to remember one. It has definitely made it easier for them to manage. In addition, we've introduced MFA so that whenever you sign in, you're also challenged for approval on your mobile device. That adds to the security.

The single sign-on across multiple platforms is really the true advantage here. That gives you one ID and password for access to all your systems. You don't need to manage a plethora of different user IDs and passwords to all the systems that you're going to access. 

The downside is that we now have all our eggs in one basket with Microsoft. We have this great authentication and single sign-on, but if Microsoft has an outage in North America or globally, on Outlook or Teams, we're dead in the water. There is no drop-back-and-punt. There is no "Plan B." The bottom line is that if their services go down, our productivity goes with it. Working with them when we have outages can be very frustrating. We get some type of hiccup once a quarter.

We get service notifications from them all the time that the services are under investigation or that there is some type of issue. More than the headache of not completely understanding the severity, we have to make sure that we communicate with our end-users. We get to the point where we're potentially "crying wolf." We're telling them there's a problem but some people don't have the problem. Then they get to the point where they just ignore our communication.

Outages can last hours, but never more than a day. They can be regional outages where one area is affected and other areas aren't. The advantage is that it could be evening or night in the area that is down, so it's less impactful.

I've been using Azure Active Directory at my current company for just about four years.

My impression of the stability is mixed. If it were really working correctly, it should be able to digest these outages by rerouting us to other areas. But that doesn't happen.

We have a global footprint, so it scales globally, no doubt.

Tech support from Microsoft has been cumbersome for Office 365. We don't really get the answers we want in a timely manner. There are times that we get the runaround, and that's the downside to being an early adopter and being on the leading edge. Sometimes we have to sometimes QA and work out issues with their products, which I'd rather not have to do.

A larger shop, like a Goldman Sachs or a JP Morgan, is not going to adopt this stuff until it's mature. And that means that smaller companies, like ours, have worked out the kinks.

Neutral

Before AAD we used the on-prem version with on-prem controllers. We went with AAD because there was no other option. We had their on-prem solution, and in the evolution directed by our CTO, everything is moving to the cloud. The next logical next step was to move to AAD.

I didn't set it up, the guys who work for me did it. I think it was fairly complex because we're about to go through an acquisition and we are going to merge them into our tenant. We have to outsource some of that work to a third party to assist us with that because we don't have the in-house skills.

Costs are constantly being managed. We don't really have a choice. It's the one shop in town. If you want this, you have to pay for it. We have an E5 license, which I believe is the most expensive license.

From an AAD standpoint, I don't think we've had any issues. The data replicates correctly and no one really has a problem with their credentials from AAD. It's meeting our expectations.

The solution allows us to assign and give the access and controls. It allows us to monitor privileges with the users so that we can then be in control of the access given to digital resources.

The best example of how it has helped our organization is when we migrated toward Azure. We were able to take all the users which were there on-prem and migrated them over. If those facilities were not there in Azure Active Directory, then we would likely have to create individual users and one by one give them specific access. We'd have to look at their needs and set authentication. It would be hard to control users that needed higher admin-level access. Without the Active Directory, we would not have the control we needed. 

Azure AD has features that have helped improve our security posture. That's one of the basic fundamentals of having an Active Directory. The whole concept of Azure Active Directory came from the Active Directory on-prem version. There’s this tunnel of authentication that it has.

When you migrate, you can migrate your Active Directory on-prem onto the Azure Active Directory which has tightly integrated features due to the fact that they both are from Microsoft. Based on that, you can give access based on what privileges are needed. Basically, if you're talking about security, everything is related to role-based access. The security aspect is linked to providing the proper access.

My understanding is, in the future, they will be able to bring everything into one single platform and they are not there yet. We are loving third-party authentication, however, those authentications will be further scrutinized by AD itself.

For example, if you want to book a flight, you go to any website to book. Booking the flight can be divided into two parts. One is creating a log-in with a particular website and then booking. However, if there are five to ten websites and you want to compare prices on all of them. You aren’t going to set up a log-in for each and every site. That's not feasible.

Instead, you can use your own login credentials, for example, from your Hotmail or Google account. Then, you have a token authenticated by Google, et cetera, which gives you the privilege to do the booking for a particular session. This is similar to what Azure AD should do in the future for authentication and allowing access.

I've been using the solution for at least four to five years. 

The stability is good. It's always there. If it is down then that's it. Anyone can log in. Anyone can do anything, whatever they want to do. That's why it's considered the backbone of the security pillar. There has never been any downtime, however.

Azure AD is scalable. You don't need to take care of it as it's a part of the service which is taken care of by Azure itself based on how our company grows. Basically, it's a hidden feature, and scaling it for the end-user is always happening. It's always scaling.

We have about 3,000 users on Azure AD currently.

I've been working as an architect and therefore have never directly dealt with technical support. 

I work on different platforms. For example, I work on AWS and GCP (Google Cloud Platform), et cetera. Azure AD is very good and very powerful and offers a basic foundation having the highest status or dominance in terms of providing access management. It's tightly getting integrated with the on-premise solutions. That’s true irrespective of what cloud you're using - whether GCP, AWS, Oracle, or IBM - whatever the cloud provider, you're using the services you will be using a laptop or dashboard.

We are now working remotely. However, having remote access doesn't mean that you are not entering the company premises virtually. Basically, everything is going through your company's network. You're just going through to a cloud. You can move across platforms to validate. You can still use the AWS site to authenticate and verify the users. No matter the cloud, you’re still using Azure AD to get access.

I wouldn't say the initial setup is complex. If you have a good understanding of the product, you can break down your tasks. Then, slowly, step by step you can complete all the tasks.

Our operations team did the migration from on-prem AD to Azure AD. Therefore, I cannot speak to the exact length of time it took. My work was to design the architect and provide them with the solution. 

I have clients who have seen an ROI.

I'm not a Microsoft partner. I work as a consultant.

I'm predominantly using the SaaS deployment version. 

My advice to potential users is on the security side. There was a famous article on Gartner which clearly stated that by the end of about 2023 or 2024 if someone tries to access your network or if anything becomes accessible or has been exposed, it is not the cloud provider that is the problem. It is due to a misconfiguration of the services.

It's not really with the user. It's really with how and what kind of access you provide to that user. For example, if I give someone an admin status, and they provide access to someone, they are providing not only basic access, they’re giving access privilege or admin rights. If they’re giving admin rights to the wrong person, even though they may have the best intentions, due to a lack of knowledge, that person may do something stupid and it may be a disaster to the company. That has nothing to do with the AD users themselves. You need to be aware of the security and the access that you're granting your users at all times.

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

We are using it for central management, MDM, SSO, MFA, applying policies.

In terms of the features that I have found most valuable, it is cloud based so it is always updated, that part you don't have to take care of. It is public cloud. It is actually AD as a service, so it's a kind of an infrastructure. It is more infrastructure as a service.

We had some issues with the migration of users from the local user accounts to Azure AD. It was more like a local issue and had nothing to do with the Azure AD itself. It works fine for SSO, the Single Sign On. We were not able to do the integration very easily with ADP, so that was a challenge, but later on it was resolved. We had to do a lot of things to have that on the configuration. Some systems do not integrate very well with Azure AD. We thought of going for Okta, but later on we were able to achieve it, but not the way we wanted. It was not as easy as we thought it would be, the integration was not very seamless.

Additionally, it would be great if they added support for more applications in terms of integration for SSO. That's the only thing that I find missing for Azure AD.

We have been using Azure Active Directory for the last six months. We didn't do any migration from on-premise Active Directory to Azure AD on the cloud. What we did when we were setting up the computers was to join users to Azure AD and apply some conditional policies and everything works fine. We don't have any issues. The only thing we face are some problems with some computers because they were using it locally and we had a lot of data. So when we did the migration to Azure AD, we also had to move all the user settings data, the complete user profile, to the Azure AD account, as well. That was a challenge, but I was able to use ProfWiz to move data between user profile.

There are not any bugs or glitches that I can recall. So far everything is working well.

Scalability is one of the reasons we selected Azure Active Directory. It scales very well.

For now there are almost a hundred users using it, but we are adding more.

We contacted support only one time and it was not related to SSO. We had some questions about their subscription and it was good.

When I was working with another company, we were using on-premise Azure Active Directory. We didn't want to invest in the infrastructure to maintain it, to get the license, so it was not very cost effective for us. We had a meeting with the management and saw that Azure AD would be very cost effective, scalable, and more secure, especially in terms of SSO and MFA, which were some of our requirements. We didn't want Active Directory on premise. It was not easy to do the migration.

The initial setup is not very difficult, especially if you start using it straight away. But if you do the migration, I think that might be a challenge. Fortunately, we started directly from Azure AD, we didn't have to do any migration from Azure AD On-premise to the cloud. It was pretty straightforward and easy. We didn't face any difficulties.

It depends on their requirements and what they are trying to achieve. One shoe does not fit all feet, so that's why it might be different from company to company. For us, it met all our requirements. It was very scalable, which is huge, and just always available. You don't have to be very worried about maintaining your own hardware, your own infrastructure, updating the servers from time to time or caring about securing your on-premise infrastructure. Azure AD is a good solution. I am satisfied with it so far and everything works great.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Azure Active Directory a nine.

I'm a computer engineering student in Portugal, and we used it during one of our classes for practically the whole semester. We used both the on-premise solution and the Azure, online one.

While we were learning, we used it primarily for user access management and also to define rules for the organization. For example, we created organizational units and defined domains for enterprise-level organizations. I was able to specify access to, for example, certain folders, including shared folders and shared resources.

We were using it in conjunction with SQL Server 2019.

Azure Active Directory works well to access the resources that the school has set up for the students. We can share between our groups, and we can set up shared assignments or shared project folders very quickly and easily.

We have access to shared storage space, which is great. It is managed through Azure Active Directory and appears to me as a Microsoft OneDrive account.

As an end-user, the access to shared resources that I get from using this product is very helpful. I also use it for my email, which is a domain that is part of the organization. 

The most valuable feature is the ability to define certain roles for the users and to give access to shared resources.

The options for user access management on the cloud are similar to those with the on-premises deployment. You can work directly on the cloud but control it from your on-premises server if you want, or you can make all of the changes directly on Azure.

One of the security features that Azure Active Directory provides is that it warns users about the usage of weak passwords. When we created user accounts and their passwords, it warned us about weak passwords and gave us the option to define password creation rules. We tested the feature and tried using invalid passwords, and it blocked access to the organizational units accordingly. We did not work with the more advanced security features within the scope of the course.

It has some good monitoring options that you can use to see how well it is working. In my class, we were able to see which users were accessing the solution, and what went wrong with the tests that we were doing.

The most challenging aspect I found was the creation of organizational units and specific domains. They have a tool called Bastion, which is expensive and a little bit confusing. I had to cancel the subscription because it was using my credits too quickly. For the students, it was not a very cheap way to learn it.

It would be helpful if they provided more credits for students who are performing test cases because we had to be really careful when we were using it. Making it cheaper for students would be great.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for one school semester.

Because we weren't using it on a large scale, it is difficult to estimate how good the stability is. That said, it worked fine for the small number of users that we had. Although it was not a good test, I think that it worked fine. It does have some good monitoring options, so we could watch the performance.

I do not have large-scale experience with this product, as I was using it for practice during my degree program. I don't know at this point whether I will be using it in the future.

In my class, there were half a dozen or fewer users.

In order for the solution to be scalable, it requires some upfront work. You have to well define the users, profiles, and roles that you want to have at your organization. We were already given some advice on that from our teachers, including which roles we should create and so forth. Once you have that done, I think it's pretty straightforward. You just have to add them through the interface that the solution has, and it's not very difficult to do.

I did not have to contact Microsoft technical support.

Our teachers explained what it was that they wanted us to implement and we were left to figure out how to accomplish the tasks on our own. When problems arose, I used Google to search for answers online. I also watched YouTube videos that included explanations and step-by-step tutorials.

Another solution that we learned about was the Apache Web Server. You can do the same things that you do with Azure, but it's more complex. You have to know a little bit more about Linux and you have to do it more manually.

In Azure Active Directory, there are already some default options available. That worked for us. It's easier for someone who doesn't want to have the headaches of understanding some of the more minor details.

For the initial setup, we mainly followed the tutorials that Microsoft has online. Initially, it was a little bit confusing because we discovered that there are many different versions of this same software. There are distinctions between an on-premise way of doing things versus a hybrid approach versus something that is on the cloud exclusively. There are limitations that each one of them has, as well as other differences that include mobile versus desktop solutions.

For a newbie like me, it was a little bit challenging to understand what the best approach would be. In this case, we were oriented by the teachers to implement the hybrid approach. When we were configuring Azure Active Directory for this, and also for the organizational units, we used the Bastion service. It is the one that creates the domains.

The deployment took perhaps half a day to complete the configuration, step by step. We had to make corrections between configurations, where we had made errors, which was part of the learning process. Overall, when you really know what it is that you have to do, it's pretty straightforward and quick to complete. Otherwise, it will take you a little bit longer.

From the documents that Microsoft has available, we understood that there are several ways to deploy this solution. There is an on-premises version, a cloud-based SaaS, and a hybrid option. 

We were using virtual machines with a license that was connected to our educational package. We have a product key, install it locally on the virtual machine, and that's how we worked with it. At that point, it was connected to the cloud.

Our Azure accounts are related to our college email address, and they are also administered by Active Directory.

We deployed it ourselves. With our small group and for the length of time that we used it, we did not perform any maintenance and I don't know how it is normally done on a day-to-day basis. Based on what I have learned, I think that one or two people are sufficient for maintenance if they know the product from head to toe.

Based on my experience, it would be difficult to estimate how long it would take to earn your investment back.

As this was being used in an academic setting, we were using the educational package. Azure has an educational package available for students with a variety of licenses and different software available. One of the applications included with this is the Azure SQL Server.

Each of the student accounts had an opening balance of $100 USD in credits. We used that to implement the solution and the code doesn't change if you are a student or a normal organization. Some of the things that we wanted to do were blocked by the organization, so we had to use our personal accounts. When we used our credits in this way, it was not specifically for students but for anybody who uses the service.

These credits are used on a pay-per-use basis and the price depends on the features that you use. The most expensive one that was relevant to our use case was Bastion, which allowed us to create and configure virtual subnets. Our use case required us to use it to connect our on-premises Windows Server with the cloud AD.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Azure AD is to study the basics. Get to learn how this access management solution works. We used Microsoft Learn and YouTube videos to assist us with doing so.

In summary, this is a complete solution for any company, but it requires some time and practice.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are a system implementer and this is one of the products that we provide to our clients.

We primarily use this product for identity and access management. Any of our customers using Office 365, which includes Exchange Online and SharePoint Online, are using it for authentication. Worldwide, there are a lot of use cases.

The identity check includes whether the username and password are correct, and it also supports multifactor authentication.

This solution is in the cloud and as soon as users log in to the Office 365 portal, or whatever application you assign to them, it will take care of the identity aspect.

The most valuable features are authentication, authorization, and identity access.

Conditional access is a very important feature where a specific user can be restricted such that they cannot connect to the application if they travel outside of the US.

Multifactor authentication is very important.

They have a velocity check, powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, where if you have been logging in at a location in the US but suddenly you try to log in from a different country, it flags it as an unusual amount of travel in a short time and it will ask you to prove your identity. This is a security feature that assumes it is a phishing attack and is one of the important protections in the product.

The problem with this product is that we have limited control, and can't even see where it is running.  If Microsoft can give us a way to see where this product is running, from a backend perspective, then it would be great.

I would like to see Microsoft continue to add new features gradually, over time, so that we can introduce them to our customers.

We have been using Azure Active Directory for more than six years.

The stability of this product is 100%, and we plan to continue using it.

As this is a cloud-based product, you don't need to worry about scalability. Regardless of the number of users, it handles identity management.

90% of our customers are using it. From what I see, we have up to 50,000 end-users. In reality, we can have up to 400,000.

We can handle most of the issues by ourselves but if not, Microsoft support is available and we just have to create a ticket.

This is the first cloud-based identity management solution that we have used. In an on-premises deployment, we use the traditional Active Directory.

The deployment process involves using the Azure AD Connect tool, which is very important. The only choice that needs to be made beyond this is whether you want to have single sign-on (SSO) enabled or not.

The deployment will require some basic planning. The length of time required will be a maximum of four weeks. Three staff should be sufficient, although this depends on the number of users.

The maintenance of this solution is almost zero. The only time that something needs to be done is in the on-premises portion of a hybrid solution. The cloud aspect is maintained by Microsoft.

As this is a cloud-based solution, less maintenance is required, so the return on investment is better.

The P1 version costs $6 per user per month. If you need the P2 version then it is an extra $3 per month.

There are two different Premium versions of this product available, being P1 and P2. For 99% of our customers, P1 is enough. The P2 version has some advanced features required by a small number of customers.

Overall, my experience with Active Directory has been very good. When we work in the cloud, this product provides us with almost everything.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.