Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

I use Microsoft Entra ID daily as an end customer in an enterprise environment. We are using it for very simple use cases such as authenticating with SSO to third-party solutions.

In a lot of situations, it is easy and free or almost free to use Microsoft Entra MFA.

It could be better if a simple member could understand more easily the prices of the products and packages offered by Microsoft. Additionally, after the first three years of a bigger package, renewal prices could be more transparent as they tend to increase significantly.

I have been working with Microsoft Entra ID for approximately five years.

I haven't had any bad experiences with its stability in the last five years. It works consistently, and any downtime can be monitored through Microsoft State Data Monitor.

Our customers are small businesses, so scalability is not a significant concern for us.

I have a direct contact with the Microsoft Hungarian team. They manage our problems, especially on the enterprise side, and I have heard no negative feedback regarding their response times or SLAs.

Positive

The setup experience was not difficult and I would rate it as eight out of ten. It just required some time to set everything up correctly.

We consulted with the Microsoft Hungarian team for any enterprise-level issues.

Initially, customers can get good prices for a three-year package, but renewal prices tend to increase significantly. If a customer looks for an alternative solution after three years, we often find it cheaper or the same as continuing with Microsoft.

I've worked with the Microsoft Tensor Solution and CI Mentech. We also considered other authentication systems like Ping, Kaseya, and Symantec VIP. In terms of SASE, I've had experience with Netskope, Cloudflare, and Palo Alto.

If you consider SASE aspects, Microsoft Entra is not a leader solution. There are stronger competitors in SASE, like Netskope and Palo Alto, and it may not be the best idea to rely solely on Microsoft solutions if your operation runs on Microsoft.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

Microsoft Entra ID has made our organization more secure. 

The tool's most valuable feature is conditional access. 

The product needs to improve its support.

I have been working with the product for five years. 

Microsoft Entra ID is stable. 

The product needs to improve support. There are many steps before you get to someone who can solve the issues. 

Neutral

Microsoft Entra ID's deployment is easy. 

Microsoft Entra ID helps save money since you don't need a second MFA solution. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

Our primary use cases are to join devices to Azure AD.

Entra ID provides more clarity regarding what's happening in the business. The benefits of using this solution were realized straightaway.

It helped save time for our IT administrators or HR department. Azure ID has positively affected the employee user experience in our organization.

We use features like a single pane of glass for managing user access to a certain degree. The admin center for managing all identity and access tasks is also good.

Moreover, we also use the conditional access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls. Any new user would have to go through the MFA process due to the conditional access policy. So no one gets left out. This is because of the zero-trust strategy for verifying users. 

The biggest benefit of using Azure AD is that it allows us to access the information on-premise servers and also for devices that just joined Azure AD.

In future releases, I would like to see an attack simulator incorporated, especially for some of the business plans.

I've been working with Azure AD for two years.

The initial setup was complex, but we overcame the complexity. 

The pricing is fine. It is what it is. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Azure AD is primarily used as the backend for all Microsoft Office 365 user accounts and licensing, as well as for securing those accounts. Endpoint Manager is also utilized, which is part of domain control in the cloud, even though it is not Azure AD.

Azure AD has enabled the organization to set up single sign-on to all applications and has consolidated everything to a single cloud authentication for users. This saved a lot of time by not having to administer accounts in multiple systems, and it has also made it easy to control user identity for all cloud and internal applications. Security features such as attack surface rules and conditional access rules are also highly valuable and help the organization feel safe with all its user accounts. The Entra conditional access feature is used to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls, and it is perfect for verifying users in line with the Zero Trust strategy. Overall, Azure AD enabled the organization to control one set of accounts and policies for everything, providing a huge benefit.

The security features, such as attack surface rules and conditional access rules, are the most valuable aspects of Azure AD.

The only improvement would be for everything to be instant in terms of applying changes and propagating them to systems.

I've been using this solution since 2017.

The stability of Azure AD is perfect.

Azure AD is highly scalable and enables the organization to control everything from one office.

The support channel for Azure AD is probably pretty good, although there was a strange experience with technical support once. Overall, the customer service and support would be rated as positive, with an eight out of ten rating.

Positive

I have never used any other products except Google Workspace, which is very intuitive but not comparable to an identity system.

The initial setup of Azure AD was quick and took just a workday or two, although tweaking it took about a week. The implementation of Azure AD probably took about 48 hours. In terms of maintenance, Azure AD doesn't require any maintenance as it is a cloud service that is always up to date.

At the time, we used contractors to set it up because it was new to us. If I was going to do it today, it wouldn't be that complex for me because I now know the ins and outs of it, but at that time, we contracted people to help us set it up so that we could do it with the best practice. We probably had just one contractor and then we just helped out.

For those looking to implement Azure AD in their organization for the first time, it would be recommended to get rid of the legacy Active Directory right away and go straight to Azure AD instead of starting out hybrid and having to wind that down. If local Active Directory isn't needed, it's best to move all authentication over to the cloud and scrap the Active Directory domain controllers. The Entra portal is a huge benefit as it provides a consolidated view of everything and makes it easier to navigate security, users, conditional access, and identity protection.

Microsoft has been consolidating the view to provide a single pane of glass. It has been more and more down to that. They're now out with something called Entra. It's the Entra portal, and it has a very consolidated view of everything I need to do. Microsoft Entra is basically Endpoint Manager, Microsoft Defender, and Azure Active Directory pulled together for an easy view and ease of navigation. I've started to use Entra a little bit. It has only been out for a little while, but it was created to simplify finding everything. So, instead of navigating through the portal at Azure, I've started using Entra. I like it a lot. At first glance, it looks very intuitive, especially based on how I've been navigating until now. 

What Entra is doing is a huge benefit. If you're starting up today, it's much easier to get into security, users and conditional access, and identity protection. They've consolidated most of the important things there. You can navigate to everything from there, but they draw forth the most important ones in a more intuitive way. They've done that, and what they've done with Entra is what was missing.

Overall, I'd rate Azure Active Directory an eight out of ten. 

When we access the API, we use Microsoft Authenticator. Something with potential will be saved, and if the company has some use cases to connect to some database, I will use it as well, or something along those lines.

Normally, because a third party requires it.

It provides you with security. It provides the third party with some level of security.

But vendors like myself do not appreciate it.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that is easy to use.

It is also automated.

I believe it can also be integrated into other Microsoft products, as well as more integrations with other solutions.

I have been working with Microsoft Authenticator for two years.

I am working with the most recent version.

Microsoft Authenticator is quite stable.

I would rate the stability of Microsoft Authenticator a ten out of ten.

Microsoft Authenticator is a scalable solution. 

I would rate the scalability of Microsoft Authenticator an eight out of ten.

As far as I know, we have more than 30 users in our organization. Some are senior professionals and some are developers.

I have never dealt with technical support.

I use UiPath as well as Automation Anywhere.

I started with Authenticator and then moved on to the Namespace version or class that I can import from Microsoft.

I would rate the initial setup a ten out of ten.

It was easy.

It only took a few hours to deploy.

It's an out-of-the-box deployment, but I am not the one who manages it.

One person was involved in the deployment.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. It is easy to use and it fits its purpose.

Because it is scalable and reliable, I would rate Microsoft Authenticator an eight out of ten.

I have been working with a medication company and we are building an LMS system. We have an older version and we've decided to develop a new version of it. We are building the entire system on the cloud and using new technology.  We started the process on Azure cloud, but we have later plans to try AWS, but for now, we are using Azure Active Directory.

Having access to Azure Active Directory on the cloud gives us speed and use of the latest technology. The application services are very good, such as GitHub.

Azure Active Directory could be made easier to use. We have large amounts of data and storage. We are looking for video files and media content for applications, we will think about options, such as cloud storage or a CDN.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for approximately three years.

I have not found any problems with the stability of Azure Active Directory.

The support for Microsoft is good. We do have a developer support package with them. We create a ticket, they respond back, then there is some back and forth communication. They will have a call with you you and ask for a screenshot of the issue. If you have any issues, they help you. They will follow up with you, the service is not bad. There are times you have to keep following up with them but we were satisfied.

The process of implementing Azure Active Directory is not straightforward. We are currently still setting it up because we are adding more services, setting up the pipelines, and many other things behind the scenes. It's not as simple, it is tough to implement.

The price of Azure Active Directory and Amazon AWS, are almost the same, but most people prefer Amazon AWS because they find it's a little cheaper to some extent and an easier platform to use. 

The prices we pay for the solution can vary because we are adding more services a lot of the time, the price keeps going up and down. The price has been one thousand before but we are still adding more services. The price depends on what services you are using.

We are paying for support to use this solution which is an additional cost.

People have personal preferences in respect to choosing a cloud provider because there are many out there. In terms of support, you have to know exactly what you're looking for and get the pricing figured out. It is important to come up with a proper plan for the implementation.

I rate Azure Active Directory an eight out of ten.

We use Azure AD for user access and control.

Our deployment is a hybrid of on-premises and cloud.

We can see user activity and analyze user interaction between the websites and log files. It gives us a single point of control. Overall it has helped place our security posture in a good position.

In addition, using Microsoft Endpoint Manager, new laptops can easily connect to the MDM solution, making for a very good user experience, particularly for new systems. Users just log in with their email ID and multifactor authentication. Once they are logged in, they connect automatically to the back end and that helps make the user experience for configuration very good.

Among the valuable features are MDM and Microsoft Endpoint Manager. They are very useful. Intune is built-in. And deploying to MDM has features that are very advanced. It reduces the administration work. And security-wise, it has very advanced technology.

It also has features that help improve security posture. The most important of these features include multifactor authentication, which is very useful for connecting to the organization, especially from outside the boundaries of the organization. That is very helpful when it comes to user security. And in the COVID situation, MDM is very helpful for us due to work-from-home. It enables us to very easily connect to our domain and align new systems with the end-users. That is very helpful for us.

There are some difficulties in the hybrid version, things to do with firewall security, inside the organization. They need to work on that more.

In addition, everything should be in one package. There are so many different packages. They need to provide guidance because there are so many features and we don't know how to implement them in our organization.

I'm also expecting a Windows 365 virtual desktop. I would be interested in that feature.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for four years.

It's 100 percent stable.

The scalability is unlimited.

I would rate Microsoft's support at nine out of 10. It's not a 10 because in some cases they don't answer a call because they are engaged with other calls.

We tried ManageEngine but it was not useful for us. It was not up to the requirements of our organization. Azure AD is a very flexible solution. It is used in most of the organization.

It is very easy to configure if you are configuring a completely new cloud deployment. But with the on-premises deployment, there are some difficulties due to security issues, like credentials required.

It doesn't take more time to install AD Connect on-premises. The installation itself takes one hour and, within one to two days, we can take all the data over to it. But we then need to monitor it for at least two days to make sure everything is fine.

We have almost 400 users in our AD and we have six people involved in maintaining and administering it, including me in my role as senior IT engineer. I take care of Active Directory monitoring, as well as installation and configuration. We also handle patches and upgrades. One person takes care of the billing part.

We set it up with the help of a consultant from KPMG and our experience with him was good.

With COVID going on, part of our ROI from using the solution is that we can view the access of all the employees who are working from home. In these circumstances, that has been a notable return on our investment. 

The pricing, in the context of the COVID situation, is very high because the overseas aerospace industry, to which we supply products, has been hugely impacted. There are no projects coming in. 

The pricing should also be less for smaller organizations.

We use it mainly for our Office 365 files. The integration between the two is interesting. It's been a learning curve.

Overall, it's not a very intuitive solution.

When you have an Office 365 enterprise subscription, it comes with Azure Active Directory. We don't have a subscription to Active Directory, but our Active Directory connector puts our credentials into the Azure Active Directory. On the Office 365 side, we're also in the GCC high 365, so it's a lot more locked down. There are a few things that aren't implemented which make things frustrating. I don't blame the product necessarily, but there are links and things within there that still point back to the .com-side and not the .us-side.

There's a security portal and a compliance portal. They're being maintained, but one's being phased in and the others are being phased out. Things continue to change. I guess that's good, but it's just been a bit of a learning curve.

Our Office 365 subscriptions are tied to our on-prem domain — I have a domain admin there. With our Active Directory connector, our on-prem credentials are being pushed to the cloud. We also have domain credentials in the cloud, but there's no Office subscription tied to it, just to do the administration stuff. I moved my sync credential to have a lot more administrative privileges. Some of the documentation I was reading clearly showed that when you have this particular ability right on the Azure side, and then you have another ability on the Office side, that intuitively, the Microsoft cloud knows to give you certain rights to be able to do stuff. They're just kind of hidden in different places.

Some things are in Exchange, and some things are in the Intune section. We had a few extra light subscriptions that weren't being used, so I gave my microsoft.us admin account a whole other subscription. In the big scheme of things, it's roughly $500 a year additionally — it just seems like a lot. I didn't create a mailbox for that and I was trying to do something in Exchange online and it said I couldn't do it because I didn't have a mailbox.

You can expect a different user experience between on-prem and online. Through this cloud period, we have premiere services, we have a premiere agreement and we had an excellent engineer help us with an exchange upgrade where we needed a server. We needed an OS upgrade and we needed the exchange upgrade on the on-prem hybrid server. We asked this engineer for assistance because my CIO wanted to get rid of the on-prem exchange hybrid server, but everything that I was reading was saying that you needed to keep it as long as you had anything on-prem. We asked the engineer about it and he said, "Yeah, you want to keep that." In his opinion, it was at least going to be two years. So at least I got my CIO to stop talking about that. It's just been an interesting time in this transition between on-prem and in the cloud.

In a secure environment, a lot of this stuff is PowerShell, which is fine. It's a learning curve, but if you don't use it all time, then it's a lot of back and forth with looking at the documentation and looking at other blogs. If you're in a secure environment, the Windows RM (remote management) stuff can be blocked, and that's frustrating, too.

I have been using this solution for roughly five months.

It's definitely both stable and scalable. I used to work in an environment where we had a couple of onsite engineers from Microsoft and I worked on Active Directory — I did that for four years. We did the Active Directory health check, so I actually worked with the engineer for a week and went through our Active Directory. At the time, Microsoft said it was one of the top five most complicated forests out there. We had 150,000 users and 18 domains across the globe supporting the military, so it was pretty big. 

We have experience with their premier support. We have a live audit coming up shortly so we don't have a lot of time to waste, waiting for support to get back to us — unless it's very critical. 

I wasn't involved in the initial setup, so I cannot comment on that. 

We used an integrator, however, we don't speak of his name anymore. 

I think we're on the E3 — I think it was about 35 dollars per user. We may go up to the E5, which includes Project Online and the telecom service in TEAMS. We're in the process of rolling out Office 365 internally. We've had really great feedback that people really like TEAMS and we want to move there. 

We had a roadmap meeting with Microsoft a few months ago. Some of the more accessible types of things were on the roadmap for the first quarter of this year. I know that Microsoft's working hard at listening to their customers, especially through COVID. Collaboration has changed. They also have military folks, that's why they created the GCC High. Once they got into the GCC high, they're like, "Oh, we need to collaborate a little bit more." So they've been pushing a little bit more on integration. We're not going to have that kind of clout where I am, but where I used to work, we would've. 

Overall, I would give Microsoft Azure Active Directory Premium a rating of four out of ten. They could really benefit from some better user-training.