Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

Identity verification would be the number one use case. It also factors into mobile device management for devices that aren't registered to the company. We use MFA, and the Authenticator app is a component for multifactor authentication. So, that's why we use it.

You can set policies to specify where users will have to use the Authenticator app to log into particular applications. 

It makes all junior users accountable. There is no excuse for someone else logging into anything because of the multifactor authentication and Authenticator app. You have to verify your identity to log in to specific applications that contain confidential information, especially in a HIPAA-compliant environment.

It enhances security, especially for unregistered devices. It 1000% has security features that help to improve our security posture. It could be irritating at times, but improving the security posture is exactly what the Authenticator app does.

For the end users, it can be confusing if they have worked for another company that had the Authenticator app. It is tricky if they have already had the Authenticator app and then work somewhere else. If they have to download it again and use it again on their phone, it is something that gets complicated. I know how to get through it. They just need to uninstall and reinstall the application, but for them, sometimes, it is confusing. You can have the Authenticator app for multiple services on your phone, and that's what drives them crazy. They get a code and say "I'm using the code for the Authenticator app, but I can't get in." I tell them that it is because they already had it in, but it is for something else. They now have to add. They don't like that at all. You could be on the phone for 45 minutes trying to figure out what their problem is because they don't.

Instead of authenticating by getting a passcode or answering the phone, fingerprint identification should be added to the Authenticator app. Currently, with the Authenticator app, you have to reply to the email, enter a code, or answer the phone. It can just call my phone and then I just press the button to verify that this is me.

I have been using this solution for at least six years. 

It is very stable. If the Authenticator app is set up, you're not going to get into anything without it. It definitely works.

I'm not aware of any bugs or glitches. We usually run updates for the whole environment at a time. I'm not familiar with having run into specific bugs with the Authenticator app. I haven't had any problems over the years.

I've managed over a hundred thousand users in total, but right now, there are about 10,000 users. We are HIPAA compliant. So, everybody has to use it for everything. They have to use it to log into everything under the Office 365 environment, but in other companies or other places where I worked, it was only for specific applications. So, that's based on company needs.

I never had to call technical support for this.

We were using normal MFA, which is similar. The Authenticator app is for mobile devices per se, but normal multifactor authentication doesn't have to focus on mobile devices. You can try and log in to, for example, SharePoint Online, and if MFA is activated, you would have to just scroll to your email and click, "Hey. Yeah, this is me." The Authenticator app is just for mobile devices in my eyes.

It is straightforward for the admins, but end users hate it. On the admin side, it takes 20 minutes at the most.

The Authenticator app wants you to have all your prerequisites designed for whatever environment you want. If you're going through Azure, you can pick the particular applications on which you want this. You can also pick the users for whom you want it to be effective. You can pick the type of ways they authenticate through the Authenticator app. Those are the simple steps.

One person is enough for its deployment and maintenance. I do that. That's not even a role. It depends on who you are, but that's not a role. That's not something for which I would employ a person. I wouldn't employ an IT person or an administrator just to focus on this.

I don't pay for it. Going by how I feel, I see the prices for any MFA solution going down because the more different alternatives there are, the cheaper things should be. Microsoft Authenticator app would be the preferred application, but there are too many ways to implement MFA. I don't know how much it cost, but the price should go down.

It is pretty seamless for the end users, besides the end users having an issue setting up at times.

It is a seamless transition. It is straightforward on the admin side to set up. As a consultant, my advice to any company is that when it comes to big changes, manage end-user pain or frustration. Communicate with the end users and let them know what's going to happen. Explain to them that they're going to be frustrated, but explain why this exists. 

I understand why it exists. So, it doesn't bother me, but our end users just hate it. I understand that they don't like it. Nobody likes it, but it is needed. You are never going to meet an end user who likes any type of MFA, but you need to be more clear about its purpose.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We use Azure Active Directory for the user rules, identity management, user rule validation, authorization, and authentication.

The most valuable features of this solution are definitely the authorization and authentication, and the rule-based user validation.

Azure Active Directory is quite easy to use.

We are quite happy with the Azure Active Directory services we are utilizing.

Definitely, the price could be lower. When we moved from AWS to Azure, we started paying more. The licensing fees were more expensive.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for the last 10 to 15 years.

Azure Active Directory is quite stable.

Azure Active Directory is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 100 users in our company.

We have plans to increase our usage.

Technical support is quite good, they are awesome.

Previously, we were using an open-source solution, but we are happy with the Azure Active Directory solution.

We received the migrations as a direct value add because we are a part of Microsoft MSP.

The Azure Active Directory migration took ten days to complete.

This solution is maintained by a team of three to four people.

We had assistance from a consultant.

We pay an annual subscription fee.

I would recommend this solution to others who are considering using it.

I would rate Azure Active Directory a ten out of ten.

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

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

I've been using Azure Active Directory since 2016.

Azure Active Directory is a very stable solution.

Azure Active Directory is scalable.

The technical support for this solution is fine.

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

We used an integrator to deploy Azure Active Directory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're using Azure Active Directory for MFA.

It is very usable and easy to use.

It is easy to manage. I can manage systems with policies and automate our systems. Any professional system can be easily integrated with Azure Active Directory. It is widely used with Windows versions. 

Four years ago, we had an issue with Azure AD. We wanted to reverse sync from Azure AD to on-prem Active Directory, but we couldn't achieve this. Azure AD could connect only in one way, for example, from your site to Azure. If you needed to do the reverse and connect from Azure to on-prem, there was no way to achieve it. We asked Microsoft, and they told us that they don't support it.

Their support should be faster and more knowledgeable and customer-friendly.

I have been using this solution for maybe four years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. I don't know about the number of users that we have currently, but at the time I managed its synchronization, there were maybe 800 users. 

We're not satisfied with their support. We couldn't get support from Microsoft directly, and we made an agreement with a company. We weren't satisfied with their support. They were very slow and not friendly. They couldn't solve our problems because our program was very complex.

I didn't use any other solution. I only use Active Directory and Azure AD.

I installed hybrid Exchange. It was very easy for us. Its installation took a very short time. There was a connector system on Exchange, and we just had to set up the connection. It was very easy.

I installed it myself.  

Its maintenance is very cheap and easy. We have only two engineers to manage Azure AD and Azure Exchange.

We have an agreement with Microsoft, and my company pays yearly.

It is a very good product. I plan to keep using it because it is very easy to manage.

If you use an application in Azure and you want single sign-on for Azure products, you should prefer using Azure AD. You should synchronize your on-premise Active Directory to Azure AD. We synchronized Active Directory with Azure AD for single sign-on. For example, if a worker wants to sign in on your computer with the same user ID and password, he or she can connect to Azure services. Azure AD provides support for this.

I would rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of 10. 

We use it for the authentication of people in a hybrid configuration. In most cases,
Office 365 makes companies move to Azure Active Directory.

We have both on-premises and cloud deployments.

Its ability to provide secure connections to people at all locations is the most valuable. It is mostly used by enterprises.

The onboarding process for new users can be improved. It can be made simpler for people who have never registered to Azure AD previously and need to create an account and enable the MFA. The initial setup can be made simpler for non-IT people. 

It should be a bit simpler to use. Unless you get certifications, such as AZ-300 and AZ-301, it is not a simple thing to use at the enterprise scale.

I have been using this solution for four or five years.

I never use technical support. I usually find the information on my own or through my friends at Microsoft.

It is not complicated for me as an IT guy, but the feedback from the field or non-IT people is that it could be simpler.

MFA and P2 licenses for two Azures for fully-enabled scenarios and features cost a lot of money. This is where Okta is trying to get the prices down.

I have spent seven years at Microsoft, so I have a tendency to like Microsoft solutions because I know them and the philosophy behind them. Till now, Azure AD is probably the best solution for identity and security.

I also use Okta. For integration with Microsoft solutions, Office 365 Azure is just right. However, for some scenarios, such as consolidations, Okta seems to have a few advantages as compared to Active Directory. Okta also has a very interesting price.

I would rate Microsoft Azure Active Directory Premium an eight out of ten.

The solution grants users access to various apps built on the portal. 

There was a lot of logic and a lot of improvement overall in terms of improvement. On the user access side, it improves the company a lot, specifically in regard to security. It really does help with access and protection.

My experience so far has been amazing. I'm in the intermediate phase of understanding it. Loading users and creating groups and so forth is very easy. We can also run multifactor authentication.

The dashboard is very good. It's outstanding.

It offers very good support.

The virtual machines you can run through it are great.

We are provided with a single pane of glass for managing user access. It helps provide more insights and creates consistency in the user experience. It works perfectly. Only admins can control access. That makes it safe. If a user requests something, only the admin would be able to assign the permissions.

My assessment of Active Directory's admin center managing all of your identities and access tasks is that it is very effective. 

I do use the verified ID at this time to onboard employees. Onboarding new users is very easy. It's very quick and doesn't affect the users. It's simply sped up the process. It also helps with privacy and control of identity data for remote employees. It's good to have and it assists with security. 

Permission management is quite good. The visibility and control in the clouds are good - at least over Microsoft. 

The product has helped save time for our IT administrators and HR department. It's helped a lot of time. It might save around 70% of our time from an IT admin support perspective.

It's very good at not disrupting the user experience. 

I'm still new to the solution. I need to look at the solution more before commenting on what to enhance. 

I do not need any extra features from my side. 

Having more training would be quite helpful. 

Having a faster interface could be helpful.

I've used the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

We use the solution across multiple locations. We have multiple systems and apps that we built that run through Azure. We have about five people actively using the solution. We only have about seven people in our organization. 

The solution can scale well. I'd rate scalability nine out of ten. 

I've never dealt with technical support. My colleagues have used it and I've heard from another user that the turnaround was almost immediate. My understanding is that it is quite good. 

Positive

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward. It does not require any maintenance. 

I'm not sure if we've saved money specifically using the solution, yet, if that wasn't the case, I'm not sure why we would use it.

We have not evaluated other solutions. 

I'm a customer and end-user.

I don't use the conditional access feature. 

I'd personally recommend the solution to anyone. I'd rate the solution ten 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.

I am using Azure AD to assist a client with COCC level one and level two certifications. The primary use of the solution is its conditional access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls. The robustness of a zero-trust strategy to verify users has helped in implementing zero trust right now.

The client has to have a clone network storage and manage the services it provides to the handful of people he works for. The control and identify data do what it is supposed to do, as advertised, but the client is not utilizing those features.

The security and compliance features are very helpful. The online information on the site is well documented.

One thing I would like to see is when you're doing control measures if you could globally apply them instead of going through every user individually. I looked at this problem twenty years ago, and it has stayed the same. In twenty years, it's still the same one by one. The default is whether you get group permissions or role-based assignments, you still have to go in individually to everyone every time, which is cumbersome to me. My problem with Azure AD is that it's designed for medium to large systems, and we're not that large.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

I have been using the solution for less than a year, and the client that I'm consulting with has been using it for about four and a half, five years.

It is a stable solution.

Since we're starting with three people, it's probably not going to grow to more than ten people in the next five years. So the scalability is fine for my client's needs.

We have not contacted Azure's technical support.

The initial setup was straightforward. The client has got three people working for him.

For a small business buying individual licenses, it is an affordable solution.