The primary use cases are task tracking and technical documentation, but I'm a project manager, so I also use the product for other jobs.
We have around 15 total users, with a couple of admins.
The primary use cases are task tracking and technical documentation, but I'm a project manager, so I also use the product for other jobs.
We have around 15 total users, with a couple of admins.
The boards for task tracking are a valuable feature.
Azure AD is a turnkey solution; it provides many features for developers to use in one place.
Many of the features are outdated, so the UI and UX could be improved.
The wiki is hard to use as it's more of a repository for technical information, but when I'm writing a PRD, I need more tools for writing.
It would be good if the UI were more visually appealing, as it looks dated compared to other products on the market. It works fine for the dev team, but the navigation could be improved, especially for managers.
I've been using the solution for around two years.
The stability is okay overall.
The product is highly scalable; it's enormous and has many features.
I previously used a variety of solutions for task management, including Asana, Teamwork from Microsoft, Jira, and so on.
I wasn't involved in the deployment; the solution was already in place when I arrived. It doesn't require any maintenance that I'm aware of.
The product is relatively affordable, especially compared to Okta, a pricey solution.
Azure AD helped save my organization money, as it's a turnkey solution for dev management, though I can't say precisely how much as I'm not involved in the financial side.
I rate the solution six out of ten.
I don't use Azure AD's Verified ID, but I'm considering an identity management solution. I'm hesitant about which one to choose, and the choice is between a product from Okta and the one from Azure AD.
I use the Permission Management feature, which I look for when choosing an identity management product, but I'm still in the research phase with this feature.
Most of our staff are okay with the quality of the end-user experience within our organization, but it could be more comfortable to use for managers. It's a challenging solution to implement for every department or team because not everyone likes the UX, and it's pretty outdated when it comes to product document writing. I had an unpleasant experience when we had a power cut, and I lost two pages of documentation, as there is no autosave feature. This is important from a manager's perspective but less so for developers.
For those considering the solution, talk to your dev team to determine if it covers their needs. If so, use it, as it has many features and is very scalable.
We work with Active Directory in our own IT network in our office. We also deploy Active Directory projects in some other clients.
Active Directory is an active directory service from Windows for a Windows Server operating system.
We have synchronized identities on-premise with on-cloud identities in order to work with Microsoft-aligned services such as Office 365 and to work in the middle of hybrid topology for on-prem and cloud identities, as well as to be more productive with other capabilities that Azure Active Directory Premium offers. This includes, for example, single sign-on, multifactor authentication, Conditional Access, privileged access management, and Privileged Identity Management. Our current experience with Azure in the Cloud - Azure Active Directory - is it's very functional and productive in talking about identity and access management solutions.
In the last two years, as COVID has been present worldwide, the Azure Active Directory capabilities have allowed us to work completely in a remote way. It's not fully necessary to work at the office or in only certain locations. We are now fully capable to work from any location, any place in the world.
The most important thing about this solution is the capabilities for multifactor authentication and single sign-on that it offers for native Microsoft solutions and non-native Microsoft solutions.
The solution has features that have helped improve our security posture. Azure Active Directory works with some technologies around security such as mobile device management, mobile application management, and Azure Information Protection as well as Conditional Access and multifactor authentication. These capabilities give us a good level of security.
The solution has affected our end-user experience. For example, we work with several technologies in the Cloud, such as Salesforce. Azure Active Directory allows us to work within a single sign-on model. This allows us to work more easily, and not have to remember a bunch of different passwords for various applications. With a single sign-on, we can work in a more transparent way and we can be more productive, having direct access to our applications in the cloud.
Microsoft is working with Microsoft Identity Manager for Active Directory on-premise. It will be very important to have these identity management solutions directly in Azure Active Directory. It's very important to have some kind of Azure identity manager as a technology for identity and access management for working both in the cloud and inside the Azure suite.
I've been using the solution for the last 15 years or so.
We have the service running all the time and it runs and works without an issue. Up until now, we have not had any problems at all in terms of the availability of the service.
We know that if we need to integrate more than hundreds or thousands of users, we know this won't be a problem. We have about 80 users in the Azure Active Directory right now, however, we know that if it was necessary to scale it for hundreds or thousands of users, it wouldn't be a problem.
We've contacted technical support several times over the last ten or so years.
Microsoft is a very big, important company. People working in technical support have been very professional and quick to respond. They're very good specialists.
This is the first product that I consider as it is a powerful directory service and better than what any other company offers.
The initial setup was very straightforward. We've worked with Azure Active Directory for the last three or four years and find it very easy to deploy. It might take maybe three days.
In terms of maintenance, we only have a couple of people dedicated to offering technical support. Once you deploy it, it's not necessary to give too much support after that.
I know that there are several other solutions, for example, Open LDAP, et cetera. I like the functionalities that Microsoft Active Directory offers. Therefore, it was not necessary to test any other technology.
I'm pretty sure that one of the main advantages of Microsoft Active Directory is that not only does it provide user management, it's also a technology component inside of a very big strategy for technology in any environment or company. It's native. Users can have their own mailbox for Exchange or Office 365. Active Directory is integrated as a way of authentication for any other database or web service. The main advantage is that it's integrated into a whole global authentication strategy.
I am a Microsoft-certified systems engineer. I've been doing this for the last 22 years.
I'm a partner and reseller. We work with several specialists for deploying, project management, and development of solutions around Microsoft technologies.
For any customer or any client that is interested in deploying Azure Active Directory to have a full strategy for hybrid environments. They need to take into account users on-premise and users and resources in the cloud in order to have an integrated architecture and solution to best utilize the Azure Active Directory capabilities.
I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.
My primary use case with Azure Active Directory is configuring applications, for example Edge, on premises and doing synchronizations with ADFS in a hybrid environment.
I have used it in a lot of application integrations. I set authentication for the hybrid and cloud applications for the services that we acquire.
The feature that I have found most valuable is its authentication security. That is Azure Active Directory's purpose - making cloud services' security and integration easier.
In terms of what could be improved, I would say its interface is not very flexible, as opposed to AWS.
The services are very clear, but the user admin interface needs to be better. That's all.
I have been using Azure Active Directory for more than five years.
In terms of stability, sometimes the more applications you integrate, the more it becomes a little bit unstable. The synchronization engine is key because that's what 365on-premises is for. The main thing that Azure supports is Microsoft native 365 and the other services that come with it.
It is scalable. It is just that Microsoft likes complex licensing. They should make it more straightforward.
We just have the admins using it, that's about 20 people.
Microsoft tech support is not the best, but they're okay.
The initial setup is not that complex. Maybe I'm the wrong person to ask, though, because I am already an old AD person and I understand it.
On a scale of one to ten, I would not rate Azure Active Directory as a bad product, I would rate it as an 8.
The solution is a hybrid cloud with connectors into Azure/Microsoft 365 cloud.
I am still figuring out the whole on-prem/Azure Active Directory Premium/Microsoft 365 integrations and administrative connections.
The scalability of the solution is good.
Technical support can be helpful.
It's not intuitive and we use it mainly for our hybrid capability now and are expanding our footprint in Microsoft 365. The integration between on-prem and Online is interesting. However, the learning curve is high.
When you have an Office 365 enterprise subscription, it comes with Azure Active Directory, however, you don't have an Azure subscription. Yet, all of our active directory connectors put our credentials into the Azure Active Directory.
There are enough things that aren't implemented on our side and we are in the middle of this transition. I don't blame the product necessarily for that. However, there are links and items within Microsoft 365 that still point back to the .com side.
Items seem to continue to move, such as security and compliance. Now there's a security portal and a compliance portal, and all three are still being maintained, however, one's being phased in and the others are being phased out. Things continue to change. It's just been a bit to learn. There's a lot to keep track of. There should be a bit more transparency.
The Office 365 subscriptions are a bit confusing with a hybrid environment with what credential has an Microsoft 365 subscription. However, then some of the documentation I was reading this week was where I ran into a wall. This particular document clearly showed that when you have a particular ability on the Azure side, and then you have another ability on the Office side, intuitively the Microsoft cloud knows to give you certain other rights, to be able to do stuff. This settings and configurations are in different places. Some things are then in the Exchange Online, some things are in the Intune section, etc.
I am not sure if the intent is to have an Microsoft 365 administrator with a second subscription for a cloud admin account or not. I was trying to do something in Exchange online and received a message that I couldn't do it because I didn't have a mailbox. It's frustrating and confusing at times. There are things like that just are a different user experience between on-prem and online.
The Microsoft Premier Agreement we have has been very beneficial and we have had an excellent experience with a couple of different short cycle projects.
We've been working with the solution for just over a year and I have been involved for the last five months. It's been under a year, and not very long just yet.
The scalability seems to be there. We are not a very big shop but we have unique needs and requirements.
The premier services we have are very good. We have a contact that's been with Microsoft a while and that's really saved us. The reach back into field engineers and their amazing ability to get the job done have been hugely beneficial. The Exchange Online engineer we had was worth double what we paid for. It was amazing. If it weren't for that, I am not sure if we would have made our schedule. Often the timing hasn't lined up, with short notice compliance requirements and implementation constraints due to configuration or version of technology. They are very responsive, but depending on if it's break fix or planning, the planning side as longer cycles.
I wasn't a part of the initial setup. I can't speak to how long the deployment took or how easy or difficult the process was.
We had assistance with the setup. We're actually bringing in some more help as our needs have short turn cycles and some ageing infrastructure that we still have to move online.
I would say to make sure you have a trusted integration partner or someone on staff that has been through this transition.
We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.
While we use the on-premises model, we also have it synced for hybrid functionality.
With COVID especially, there have been a lot of changes in a lot of companies and a lot of rethinking of processes lately.
We're in the process of rolling out Office 356 internally. We've had really great feedback that people really like Teams, and we want to move more into that area. We had a roadmap meeting with Microsoft a few months ago. It was probably five months ago, four or five months ago.
Some of the more accessible types of items were on the roadmap for the first quarter of this year. However, Microsoft's working hard at listening to customers, especially through the COVID situation that changed a lot of work and priorities. The collaboration stuff has changed. They've been pushing a little bit more on getting some more integrations. We're not going to have that kind of clout where I am, however, where I used to work, we would have. We were the ones that were making sure the Exchange got upgraded and got to the developers.
I would rate the solution at a six out of ten. If the solution offered better transparency/clarity I might rate it higher.
My primary use case is for our business directory, we have integrated everything into Azure into the Active Directory.
We basically use this for Skype. We are using the cloud environment and we need the Active directory to be ticketed so if we can call and they can log in at the moment. Apart from that, we use it for video connections. If people are working from home, it is helpful that it is in the cloud. At the moment, we do not need to go for the VPN, and then we can connect. For this purpose, we use the Azure. We run quite a big business, and it is helpful with the electrodata we have used.
I like the way it communicates to the cloud.
Whatever business requirements we needed in the past three years, users were created, with the name of the user and they were not connected with the Active Directory. We were trying to in house in three years and with directory, but we were not able to achieve it. Based on that we have informed Microsoft. And now we have created the things that are connected to the cloud.
In Africa, we do not have the same bandwidth with internet speed. This slows the connectivity and it provides challenges for our business.
Three to five years.
Yes, it is a stable product. But, sometimes we had problems due to the network. We are running in more than 24 countries. In Africa we were having issues, but I would say that 80% of our users are happy as a result of us switching to Azure.
The scalability of the product is fine.
First, we create a ticket. Then it is assigned to the technical support team. Afterwards, there is a number assigned to the request by the Microsoft team. We then upload the report of the log, or the case that is required. We then wait for the solution. Then, we can test it and implement the correction for the solution.
It was a bit complex. We initially had an issue with our IP address, but it was resolved.
I believe that this solution has simplified our work environment. We have over 13,000 users and this is very helpful to connect everything.
It is a really nice tool and we have a license for the more complex model. It is not too expensive.
Be aware that it may not work perfectly globally yet. There are still glitches with the solution in Africa.
We primarily use the solution for our AD. Azure AD and Microsoft Entra ID are basically the same, they are currently rebranding. I basically manage users and permissions.
It's made it easy to manage our users. It's also easy to deploy across the company. It pulls over the Exchange and does everything together in one go. You just have to get the licenses.
The login process is easy. It's very user-friendly for users. We can check the logins and handle user management. It's quite simple and easy to use.
It provides a single pane of glass for managing users and access. It's easy for users to handle multiple devices. It makes the sign-on experience better. It can easily teach users how to use the authenticator app.
I'm able to get reports on the database to help give visibility to security. I don't handle security, however. I'm there for support. People can use the data to perform investigations.
The ID is quite useful. The Azure ID admin center can manage all identity access tasks across an organization. We can easily set up users. It's something you need in every company. Most of the basic stuff is done for users.
The Verified ID is useful for authentication. You can set it in your privacy settings.
The solution has helped us save time.
The experience overall has been good for employees when they need to get an ID. If you need an extra license, it's just a matter of clicking one button.
We'd like to be able to link to non-Mircosft products, like Linux. There isn't much open source that links up with Azure. Most open source, however, can link up with AWS.
I've been using the solution for four years now.
The solution is stable. it's dependable.
We have about 100 users on the solution.
It's easy to scale up or down. It does what it needs to do. You can always edit or delete resources as well.
We haven't had any issues. Therefore, I have not really dealt with technical support.
Positive
I was also working with Microsoft Active Directory on-prem. I'm new to this company; I've worked with other things in other companies before.
I've used Okta in the past. I find the Azure pricing more user-friendly and I find it's better in terms fo team collaboration. For example, with this, you can also implement Microsoft Defender which can help you monitor users as well.
We have it deployed to the cloud; it's too expensive to maintain on-prem hardware.
I was not directly involved in the deployment of the solution.
Only two people have to maintain the product.
The pricing is expensive. It's in US dollars. I'd rate the affordability of pricing six out of ten.
I'm not sure if the company evaluated other options.
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. My advice would be to stay virtual and not on-prem or you'll have to pay more.
We use Microsoft Entra ID primarily to reconnect all of our Windows laptops. It is our centralized location for access to pretty much anything web-related. Everything you log in is MFA activated. We've worked on conditional access policies in it as well.
Microsoft Entra ID has improved our organization because we now utilize a single source of truth for authentication. We have less management, and I can point everything to Microsoft Entra ID. I have fewer people talking about resetting passwords, the MFA pieces, and more single sign-on.
I'm not attaching or having to authenticate on separate apps, which has greatly benefited us. We are able to route things into Microsoft Entra ID. I create one ID, I create groups that manage the security side of it, we plug that in, and it works great.
The most valuable features of Microsoft Entra ID are the login and the conditional access pieces. The login helps me identify who went where, why, and what problems they may have encountered. The conditional access allows me to control the flow of user access.
The private access is the next big thing for us, and that's one feature I'm going to try in public preview and probably move towards. There is no great solution in the cloud for Conditional Access authentication and RADIUS-type authentication.
I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for four years.
The solution's stability is very good. We've only had one minor outage for a few hours.
The solution's scalability is really good.
The solution's initial setup is fairly straightforward. The biggest issues we had were syncing it to the on-premises Active Directory and doing local things like RADIUS.
We implemented the solution with the help of a consultant named Steeves and Associates, and our experience with them was really good.
We have seen a return on investment with Microsoft Entra ID. The solution has dramatically reduced the amount of time spent on activating accounts. I was the first system administrator at the company, and we've got four now. It's definitely a growing arena, but it's an understanding that I can see that progression. I don't have to teach them all these different things. We just do one thing and move on.
Everything costs money in a tough market. As a nonprofit, we have A5 licenses for nonprofits in education, so we at least have some reduced costs. Looking at Copilot and a bunch of other features that are coming out, we'll have to seriously consider that cost-to-value ratio.
Since we all use Windows laptops, choosing Microsoft Entra ID made sense. I think there's a cohesivity in what Microsoft is trying to do, and Microsoft Entra ID is a very core function of that strategy. It's easier to branch out to other security products, making it easier for us to expand that landscape.
Microsoft Entra provides a single pane of glass for managing user access.
Because of the solution's single pane of glass, we don't have to run around to multiple places, mainly to create or remove accounts. One of our biggest issues, especially in the past few years, is turnover. Removing accounts is a big issue because we don't know where everything lies. Trying to find those little corners where access has been granted and not knowing it for a year or two after the employee has left is a huge security concern for us.
Our HR department doesn't use Microsoft Entra ID yet, but the IT department extensively uses it. It saves all that account creation, and we don't have to run around to different products. The solution has saved our company at least a few hours a week. We can focus on other projects, and I can educate most of my staff who are doing it in other areas.
Microsoft Entra ID has not necessarily helped our organization to save money. As a nonprofit, we didn't have any solutions, so it probably started costing us more. However, I think it's paid off just by this security nature of things and having that single pane of glass.
Overall, I rate Microsoft Entra ID ten out of ten.
I use a Microsoft 365 cloud deployment and I have an organization where users are created. All of these users are hosted in Azure AD. I send emails in Exchange Online.
For collaboration, we use Teams and SharePoint. Basically, all of these Microsoft products are on Azure AD. This is due to the fact that for you to use any of these products, users have to be created and these users are being hosted in Azure Active Directory. Without the users in the first place, the products are not used.
The most valuable aspect of the solution is the ability to create users and host them in Azure AD. That is the bedrock - whatever it is you are doing, you're building on the fact that you have users created. We have Microsoft Teams to manage users and also to manage groups which allow us to manage collaborations and do all sorts of things.
Azure AD has features that have helped improve our security posture. It contains the Azure audit logs that allow you to also audit activities in the organization including those that have happened over a period of time. There is Azure sign-in that allows you to check for sign-in over a period of time for users.
From Azure Active Directory you can actually identify the IP address and run checks or maybe block the IP to improve the security posture of the organization.
The Azure sign-on and audit logs are very handy for a regular admin. They offer the most basic admin solutions to carry out activities on Azure security settings to identify potential threats and carry out some corrective actions on it.
We can use Azure Active Directory to deploy enterprise applications to incorporate third-party applications into the organization and make them available to users. You can put in place multilingual authentications and you can specify the kind of authentication you want to be available for your organization.
Most recently, you can use password-based authentication and multi-factor authentication, which allows for the ability to bring on third-party applications and to incorporate them and deploy them for users.
With Azure Conditional Access you can specify network locations where you want some of the services in the organization to be available to users, and where you don't want users to have access. You can customize and define conditional access to whatever suits the organization and based on what you want, including information protection. You can get conditional access depending on the license you have.
From my personal experience, I'd say that the features need to be more visible to make the product easier to explore for new users. They need to make it possible for someone with very little knowledge to come in and find things. The product needs to be more user-friendly.
The solution needs to update documentation much more regularly. They need to just come out and update the documentation to reflect new features and make sure the updates are included in the already existing documentation so that someone like me can just pick up the documentation, read it, and know that it is very up-to-date listed and has all the new features contained within it.
I have been using Azure Active Directory Office 365 for over two years.
The solution is exceptionally stable. It's just a way to go on another solution, however, that said, I've noticed a 99.9% stability.
It's my understanding that the solution is very scalable.
In my experience, I've managed hundreds of users on this product.
We can contact and support directly from the Azure Active Directory if we get stuck. As long as you are actually on the most basic billing subscription, you will be able to access assistance. That said, depending on the Azure license you have, you can get access to technical support for Microsoft Azure Active Directory.
My personal experience with using Microsoft support has been positive. I want to be fair, to be very honest, and the Microsoft support has to be one of the most agreeable out there as all you need to do is just submit the ticket and you get someone to contact you very quickly. They are always available. From the perspective of Azure Active Directory, as long as you have the required license you can contact the corresponding level of support. You can be sure of getting corporate support when you need it.
Previously, the organization had an environment where we managed everything locally. Azure Active Directory actually was our first entry into cloud solutions. We have not used other cloud solutions apart from Azure Active Directory.
The difficulty or ease of the initial implementation depends on the company and the level of experience as well as the level of knowledge of the IT team. The experience needed for cloud solutions is relative. I can say it's straightforward and even with a little experience or knowledge it is straightforward. The documentation is available and you can read and follow the documentation to handle the process. Of course, for new users, it could be a bit more straightforward.
For me, provisioning takes a few minutes - maybe between ten to 20 minutes. Normally it should take less than 30 minutes.
For this particular instance, we needed to add multiple users individually and sometimes as a bulk upload in the case of inboxes. Some needed third-party services. The documentation made the process pretty easy, however, when we did have issues, we could reach out to technical support to finish anything up.
We have seen an ROI. It's actually cut some costs. Initially, we were using a local environment. Now, we've almost rid ourselves of one of our local environments. Moving to the cloud has saved us a lot of costs and actually, it's a very good experience. It's cost-effective compared to what we used before. It's better in terms of lowering our overall expenditure.
The prices are not too out of place. We're just gradually getting out of COVID and Microsoft is actually putting some renewals, licenses, and some products out just to cushion the effect of license costs as companies recover. With Microsoft, some products also offer free trials.
We'd like to see more of a discount on existing licenses. They also need to consider having some free licenses, some free subscriptions.
I'm actually a customer. I have an environment in my home meaning I have a subscription that I've paid for. However, I also do consultancy based on the knowledge I currently have. I offer my knowledge to other organizations.
I would advise new users to allow open demos of cloud solutions and figure out what is on offer, what is available, or what can be made better. By doing a POC, you'll get to see resources used and what it's like to handle an environment entirely in the cloud. Organizations can consider gradually moving over or they can actually move completely to the cloud depending on what they want to do.
I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's a good solution, especially for companies following the trend of moving onto the cloud. There's always room for improvement, however, currently, they are doing very well.