Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

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.

We use it because we have to onboard our user laptops to our Windows domain. Azure AD provides us with the Windows domain capability.

As an organization, we are going for ISO 27001 compliance. The only way to achieve much of that was to have Azure AD in place. Once Azure was in place, many things, like bringing all our laptops into the domain, and ensuring centralized policy deployment, were taken care of and that is where Azure AD has come in handy.

We use BitLocker for policy enforcement. And now, because of the Microsoft 365 Business Premium package, we get Intune as a part of it. That's very useful for us for setting policies and managing the systems. The biggest strength of Azure AD is Intune. As a user, I rarely go into Azure AD. I would rather go to Intune and work from there.

I've been using Azure Active Directory for the last few years. Since 2020, I've been using it extensively because, where I'm working, we're totally on Azure AD.

There is nothing to be worried about when it comes to stability. It's a cloud product.

We are not worried about scalability because it's a cloud system. It will run and they will scale it. They already have packages wherein you can scale it depending on how many users you have in your system.

Our usage of Azure AD will continue, going forward, as an organization. We are not going to pull back on it. It's only a question of what more we can extract out of it as we go along.

Technical support varies. The problem is that Microsoft has contracted out support to multiple organizations around the world. When you raise a ticket, you may or may not get support from someone in your country or region. That's "Part I". 

"Part II" is that when you get to a support agent, they go by the playbook. While they do a lot of R&D for us when we give them the problem in detail, and they actually find things out and come back to us, they're not willing to go beyond the established guidelines to try to troubleshoot. They will only do so if it becomes a pain-in-the-neck issue and multiple users are reporting that problem. For example I found an issue with Defender and I raised a ticket with the Defender team. That has now been pushed to some sort of a feature update, so things like that do happen.

Positive

The initial setup is straightforward. There is nothing very complicated about it.

The very basic setup of AD might take between 10 minutes and half an hour. Then, if you sit down and focus on the task, it takes about a couple of days to have all your nodes in place.

In our company, there is another person who is my immediate junior and who reports to me. We are the ones who deploy, use, and maintain the system.

We are using the version that comes with Microsoft 365 Business Premium.

Microsoft has a very weird way of licensing the product. With the standard on-prem edition, we can do a lot of regular, day-to-day maintenance, including creating policies and the like. We can't do that in Azure Active Directory. The Azure system is very basic in nature compared to what the server provides us.

There are add-on components and services, such as identity services, that we have to add to our Azure subscription. Only then can I actually say it's on par with the on-prem server edition.

Why should I pay for a component? It should be included in my subscription. I understand there may be an added fee, but don't remove an essential component. I am a career IT guy. When I start comparing my on-prem server against this cloud edition, I see that there are components missing. The money issue is secondary. Give me a solution that matches the Azure standard edition. They should ensure that whatever I have on my domain controller are the facilities that run here in Azure AD. For example, on the domain controller, if you are my user, I can let you create a 14-character or a 20-character password. I can't do that on Azure AD. To do that, I must get the Directory Services module, which costs me another $100 a month. Let that cost be added to the bill and let me create my configurations as and how I want. Why do they want to restrict me? It's a detrimental business practice.

Still, I say go for it. Don't worry about the pricing. Licensing, at the basic level, is sensible. But you should actively talk to your reseller about the needs of your organization. Costs will vary as you dig deeper into understanding what product or service you need. Independent of your geographic location, talk to a local Microsoft partner and understand the cost. Don't simply go online and order things. I would stress that to anybody in the world, whatever the size of their organization.

The pricing module is pretty straightforward for many of the products. They have a price for up to 300 users for many of the licensed products. Up to 300 users is not considered an enterprise business.

You may have knowledge about the product, but when you talk to somebody else you get a slightly different perspective. Exercise that principle. Talk to one or two vendors, but talk. Spend time on the call. Understand what you want. One person might give you an idea of how you can deploy with your existing products, while another guy might say those products have these weaknesses and these strengths.

From the organizational perspective, it's not the native Azure AD components that provide value to the customer, it's more the other components. If you're a Microsoft 365 Business Premium customer, you get Microsoft 365 Defender. Along with that package, you get something called Secure Score for your organization. The beauty of Secure Score is that it gives you something of a benchmark. It says X percentage of organizations have this particular level of security score and it tells you how you can upgrade your security. It may tell you to enable something or disable a feature. After about a day's time, during which the change percolates across the organization, your security posture goes up a notch. That's a very useful tool for any organization, whatever the size.

The end-user experience is better because we don't have to have so many components on board, compared to other solutions, to do something. For example, even though Defender is a limited version in some critical aspects, it still does its job pretty well. One major benefit of having it is that we can control the policies of Defender from the Intune portal or the Microsoft 365 Defender system because it's backed by Azure AD. Azure AD plays a kind of backend role. 

It doesn't play much of a front-end role wherein I can create a policy. If I have to create a GPO, I must get the Directory Services component. Without that, I cannot create a GPO the way I would with the ordinary service. That's a critical difference. And with Microsoft, as usual, until you go digging around, you'll never know about this. I raised support queries with Microsoft and followed up with the tech support, after which I was informed that until I have Directory Services I can't do anything. This kind of clarity is not provided to the customer. Microsoft's website is really weak when it comes to providing specific details.

I would tell any organization that doesn't have Azure Active Directory today not to spend money on setting up a server and a data center and infrastructure. Simply upgrade your Office subscription, because it eventually happens. The world is divided into two major parts: Microsoft users and Google users, and there may be some percentage that doesn't use either product. If you're using these products and looking at ISO compliance, simply upgrade to Microsoft 365 Business Premium. You'll get Azure AD and then you can go about the rest of your work.

Overall, I rate Azure AD at seven out of 10. There is a huge difference in the capabilities between the on-prem server and the Azure version.

The primary use case is for the authentication of the users. We actually onboarded around 3000 to 4000 users at our go live, which are various application users from across the US and the other regions.

The best feature is the single sign-on provision for the various type of users. That is our sole purpose for working on that and utilizing that service as creating a custom solution for a single sign-on would be difficult when we have around 50 applications within our company that has been used by users across the globe. That includes North America plus Europe, Russia, and the Middle East. It is very difficult and complicated to do things on our own. Instead of doing that, we just acquired the service from Microsoft for single sign-on, and for that purpose, we are using the Microsoft Azure Active Directory authentication.

From our utilization perspective, they are providing almost everything. That said, the customization, like the data sharing between the application, is something that needs to be improved from their side. For example, we are sharing certain types of data. We have a container application structure, so we have a single sign-on application where we are using the Active Directory authentication, and when the user clicks on that application, the information of that user is passed to the child application, and the child application does not authenticate the user again. That is a single sign-on concept, which is available across 50 applications within that container. We pass a lot of various types of data, therefore, there's a limited capability of doing that in Microsoft Azure as, on the Azure Active Directory, we may be able to create some additional attributes, however, there are certain limitations.

Technical support could be better.

I haven't explored all aspects of the solution just yet. There's still more to look at.

We've been using the solution for as far as our last project, in which is currently being used. We have been using it for the last four years.

This is a stable solution. Since our product went live in 2017, we never got an issue with respect to authentication.

The product is scalable. It is not even region-specific. You can change the region. For example, if you want to target European users, you can simply purchase a plan for a European server or something like that. Currently, I know that our application is running in the United States region, and our targeted users are from the United States, so our application is working in the North American region, the east area.

Technical support is a thing they need to improve a lot from their side.

The engineers from the Microsoft side are professional, however, the thing is they're working on the shifts. For example, if you encountered an issue which is affecting our production application, and we talk to a guy from Microsoft in Central Standard Time. While he will be available then if the issue is ongoing for more than eight hours, which exceeds their standard working hours, he will just put a hold on the call and will say that my next representative will get back to you on this issue, and when the next representative arrives you kind of need to start over.

Neutral

The Active Directory just plays a role in authenticating the user, and it doesn't do anything else, just authentication. The services where the deployment is being done, that is a different thing. It is an application service in itself. We have an Azure Active Directory service. Besides that, we have application deployments or application services on Azure as well. That is a separate service, which is used for the deployment of the application, so when a user is accessing the application, he is redirected to the Microsoft Azure authentication application where the authentication is being performed. So far, the authentication has been performed, and that user is being redirected to our actual application, which has been deployed on the Azure service. Therefore, there isn't really a direct deployment per se for this product.

I'm not familiar with the pricing aspect of the solution. The client deals with that end of things. My general understanding is that it is quite expensive.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten. They do have an outstanding service compared to the competition. 

The main reason for implementing this solution was to help our customers to access internal or external resources seamlessly while allowing them to have full control over access and permissions. 

This enterprise identity service provided our customers with many security features such as single sign-on, multifactor authentication, and conditional access to guard against multiple cybersecurity attacks. 

Most of the clients have either Office 365 with hybrid solutions, a multi-cloud environment and they want to leverage Azure AD to manage access to those clouds or they have hybrid deployments with legacy apps on-premises and on the cloud as well. 

We have applied this solution to multiple organizations and it has helped them manage their environments efficiently. Moreover, it provided a high level of security and security features that are appreciated by most of our clients.

In hybrid scenarios, this is one of the best products you could have. It helped many of our customers to manage resources on-premises and in the cloud from a single dashboard. 

It helped our client to control permissions and review permissions for employees who have left the organization which kept them on-control over access and permissions granted to their employees.

The solution has many valuable aspects, including:

• Password policy enforcement
• Conditional access policies
• Self-service password reset for could users and on-premises
• Azure Active Directory Identity Protection
• Privileged Identity Management
• Multi-factor authentication 
• Passwordless authentication and sign-in
• Business to business and client to business support
• Support for SAML and OAuth

There are many more features that are very useful and can be used as part of the P2 package. There is no need to install any agent or tool to utilize those features except when extending advanced features to the on-premises active directory.

I believe the product is perfect, however, it could be improved if it could integrate with other clouds with fewer efforts and provide the same functionality it provides to Microsoft products.

Most of the features come with a P1 or P2 license. With the free version, you do not get much.

The objects in Azure AD are not managed in organizational units similar to what you get in the windows server active directory, which makes it more difficult to delegate administrative tasks

Azure AD does not support legacy authentication protocols, such as NTLM or Kerberos.

Azure AD is unaware of group policies. If you would like to use the same on-premises group policies, then you need to use the passthrough authentication method with your existing on-premises AD servers. This would compromise the high availability of the cloud and create a single point of failure.

I have been using this tool for more than five years.

A Very stable solution, I never saw the service down, unavailable, or anything like that.

The solution is highly scalable. There are no worries at all about the bandwidth or any other concerns. 

We've had a very positive experience and our clients are adopting it more as their sole identity and access management solution. 

Positive

We did use the SailPoint Identity Platform. There was no cloud solution at that time which is why we switched.

The ease of setup depends on the scenario and the use cases of your organization. 

We are a vendor team and most of the implementation for enterprise clients is done via us or similar vendors. 

The solution has a high ROI when adopted properly in your organization.

Make sure to check which features your organization requires. Find out if they are applicable to all users or just a bunch of them before deciding on buying a license.

We looked at many products, however, I do not want to mention the products' names. 

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.

The solution is primarily used for handling user permission and containing with the Online Exchange. It's for handling user passwords, user permissions, all of the privileges, and for using Azure Active Directory for the Online Exchange.

We're satisfied with the product in general.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the connectivity with our on-premise Active Directory.

We've found the performance to be very good.

The stability is good.

The scalability of the product is decent.

The installation process is straightforward.

The synchronization with the local Active Directory and synchronization with all of the users on the local and cloud could be better. Every user on the cloud and the on-premise local users should have a connection, have the same privilege, the same features. We should be able to change passwords from the local and have it synchronized with the cloud users.

I've used the solution for four years. It's been a while. 

The stability is good. The solution offers good performance. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We've found the scalability of the product to be very good. There aren't any issues with expanding as needed.

In my organization, we have about 25 users. I deployed it for another organization as my company is a service consultant. Therefore, I do this installation for other users and other companies. There are about 60 users in one and another has 100 users. Another company has only 20 users there. The amount of users each organization has varies. 

We do plan to grow our team and possibly use the solution more. 

I have contacted technical support from Microsoft many times, including when the mailing system is down or when I have a problem with Active Directory or Azure. I contact the help desk for Microsoft, and they reply to me in about one hour and help me to solve any issue. It takes about three or four hours and at that point usually, everything is resolved.

The initial setup was very straightforward and simple. It was not overly complex or difficult. We didn't have any problems with the process.

The deployment for the local setup takes some time. For the cloud, it's very straightforward, and it takes no time at all. It takes about two hours to totally install the hybrid, the connection, and go on with the application.

We have about five people who can handle deployment and maintenance duties. That includes me and five engineers.

I can handle the implementation myself. I do not need the help of an integrator or consultant.

We have many customers that purchase licensing agreements with Azure. Typically they are charged per user.

We're a partner.

I would recommend the solution to others. If they just read a bit about it and connect with Microsoft, they'll likely get some good advice as to how to use it. 

I'd rate it at a nine out of ten. 

We use Azure Active Directory for quite a few things. We use it for security group management of authorized principals who need access to get SSH-signed certificates for user logins. We use it for automated jot-based (JSON Web Token) self sign-on for our lowest, least privileged credentials on certain products. We also use AAD for B2B coordination of SSO when we're bringing users onto our platform, where they have Active Directory on their side. We use the OIDC-based SSO flows through AAD to merge project-level AADs back to our corporate AAD for internal single sign-on flows.

• There is tech support to help with any OIDC-based setups between organizations.
• It has good support for SAML 2.0 and OIDC-based setups for our remote identity providers.

The solution has come a long way. Now, with the Azure AD B2C offering integrated as well, we've got a full IAM-type solution for our customer-facing identity management. In addition, when it comes to user journeys we now can hook in custom flows for different credential checking and authorizations for specific conditional access. 

I don't think the documentation is where it needs to be yet, for user journeys and that type of flow. There is still trial and error that I would like to see cleaned up.

Also, they do have support for SAML 2.0 and it's very easy to set up linkages to other Active Directory customers. But if somebody is using an IdP or an identity solution other than Active Directory, that's where you have to start jumping through some hoops. So far, our largest customers are all using Active Directory, but I don't think the solution is quite as third-party-centric as Okta or Auth0. Those solutions have a lot of support for all kinds of IdPs you want to link up to.

Finally, a couple of months ago I was on a team that was looking at low-cost MFA for SSO, where we would control the MFA on our side, instead of having the remote database handle it. In those kinds of flows, there aren't as many off-the-shelf options as I would like. There were cost implications, if I recall, to turn on 2FA. Also, the linkages that they had set up off-the-shelf—obviously they had the Authenticator app—meant that if you wanted to do something with Duo Mobile or any of the other popular 2FA providers, it seems it might have taken us more time than we wanted to put into it.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for a couple of years now.

The stability is great.

The scalability is also great.

We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, so we aren't typical folks. Through that agreement, we get a dedicated technical account manager and that person is able to escalate tickets when necessary. I have found Microsoft to be very responsive when needed, although we haven't really needed them that often.

We use Azure a lot, and therefore, AAD was an obvious choice and we thought, "Why not use it?"

They've done a good job on OIDC. That was a pretty simple, seamless setup. We've done that with multiple remote IdPs now, and I don't recall too many issues there.

There is much less cost investment going into it now. We didn't have to do a volume buy to get onto the platform. When it comes to ROI, there is low friction and a high, immediate return on investment.

It's relatively inexpensive in comparison with third-party solutions. It's highly available and supported by Microsoft Azure in our enterprise agreements. With the addition of their B2C tenants, it's hard to beat from a cost perspective now.

They changed their pricing for B2B access. You used to need shared licenses so that, if you were paying for a Premium AAD on your side, that would allow you to have five shared external mapped users. They've blown that all up and it's now dirt cheap. It works out to pennies per user per month, instead of dollars. A P1 user license in their system was $6 per user per month, which is cost-prohibitive for a lot of B2B SSO flows, but now it's down in the pennies range.

I am a systems manager. I use Azure Active Directory every day for my support job.

Our authentication tools to single sign-on portals are hosted in different cloud products, like Amazon or GCP. So, we create an enterprise application and Azure Active Directory to give our users for authentication access to various public URLs.

Before Azure Active Directory, it took effort to provide cloud access to on-premises users. With Azure Active Directory and AD Connect, we are able to sync on-prem users to the cloud with minimal effort. We don't have to manage keeping multiple entities for the same user.

The multi-factor authentication (MFA) is one of the best aspects of the product. 

The security features are great. They will report in advance to you in the case of suspicious activity. 

The GUI is pretty enhanced. You can configure applications or do whatever they need to do. 

Azure Active Directory currently supports Linux machines. However, the problem is that you get either full or minimal access. It would be very nice if we could have some granular authorization modules in Azure Active Directory, then we could join it to the Linux machine and get elevated access as required. Right now, it is either full or nothing. I would like that to be improved. 

We have the ability to join Windows VMs to Azure. It would be nice if we could have some user logs, statistics, and monitoring with Azure Active Directory.

When we subscribe to MFA, the users get MFA tokens. However, it is not a straightforward process to embed any of the OTP providers. It would be good if Microsoft started embedding other third-party OTP solutions. That would be a huge enhancement.

I have been using Active Directory for two years.

This product is used every second of every day.

The solution offers nice stability and performance. 

In my organization, there might be as many as 60,000 people who utilize the solution. 

The scalability is awesome. You don't even need to think about scalability because Microsoft manages it.

We use it on a daily basis.

The support could be better. Lately, they sort of dropped off a bit in terms of quality. Recently, Microsoft support has not been doing such a good job. Previously, they used to do a good job.

In the past, AD Connect was not syncing. It threw errors in the beginning. So, I had to call up technical support to solve the problem. At the time, we were satisfied with their assistance.

I am also using AWS.

Azure Active Directory is not an Active Directory product. It is just the application proxy. You need to have an on-prem solution. Azure Active Directory would just be a proxy that uses the on-prem data and hosts the application. It is not a full-scale Active Directory solution. However, it has a lot of enhancements. The traditional on-prem Active Directory hosts the users and computers as well as some additional group objects. 

On the other hand, AWS Active Directory has all the capabilities of the traditional Active Directory with limited access for the administrator. All domain administration and sensitive credentials will be managed by AWS. So, you don't need to worry about application delays or syncing issues.  

The initial setup is simple.

It is pretty easy to set up the product. You subscribe in Azure Active Directory. By default, it will have an extension where you need to register. If you need a custom domain name, then you need to register with your public DNS providers to create the DNS public entry. You will then have to prove that you own the domain name. Once it has been proven, then your Active Directory pretty much works. 

If you need to sync up your on-prem users with the Azure Active Directory, then you need to have an AD Connect server installed at the VM-level domain. It should be credentialed so AD Connect can use credentials to read your on-premises and sync it to the cloud. Once this has been done, you are good to go. As an enhancement, for whatever user you are syncing, you can mandate them by adding them to a group or rolling out an MFA policy.

Since it is pretty straightforward, you just need one person to deploy it.

I implemented it in an hour.

Some maintenance is required. However, it is not on Azure Active Directory's part. Rather, it is for AD Connect. Often, we see that the connection is getting lost or something is not happening. Sometimes, port 443 might not be open from your on-prem Azure Active Directory. In that case, if you haven't implemented it in the beginning, then you need to do this. For a high availability solution, if you find that the machine is having additional issues, then you might need a higher AD Connect device. I would probably also deploy it with a different availability.

The solution has three types of tiers:

1. E1 has very basic features. 
2. You get limited stuff in E2 and cannot have Office 360 associated with it. 
3. E3 is on the costly side and has all the features.
   

If you need to have an Exchange subscription or email functionality, then you need to pay more for that.

We are using both the on-premises version and the SaaS version.

I would advise potential new users to learn a bit about the product before jumping in. If you are new, you need to do background research about Azure Active Directory. You also need to understand its purpose and how you want to leverage it. When you have a draft architecture in place, then you can go ahead and implement this solution. If it needs to be reimplemented, it is just a matter of five minutes.

I would rate the solution as nine out of 10.