Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

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.

The primary use case for Microsoft Entra ID is enterprise or company-wide system management. It allows us to join most systems, regardless of their location, to the active directory of the company's domain. This is particularly useful for managing PCs for remote workers and securing their devices.

Microsoft Entra ID has made managing users easier, as well as sending out policies and implementing restrictions. It simplifies the management of IT infrastructure.

The features I find most valuable are conditional access, privilege management, and dynamic groups. Conditional access allows us to set specific policies for security purposes. Privilege management enables us to assign specific roles to users, such as user administration, without giving everyone admin rights.

Microsoft often changes settings, and many features are scattered. It would be helpful if settings were grouped under a specific category, like authentication, to make it easier for beginners. The platform can be overwhelming for new users, so consistent organization of features is needed.

I have been working with Microsoft Entra ID for a good part of five years, migrating over from when it was previously named Azure Active Directory.

There can be outages or times when the portal is unresponsive, which is why I would rate the stability a seven.

I have not encountered any issues with scalability; it is for everyone. So, the scalability rating is ten out of ten.

I haven't raised any tickets with technical support, as I was part of the Microsoft technical support group.

Positive

No other solutions were used previously.

The initial setup is straightforward due to my experience, however, I would rate it a six or seven out of ten for someone new. Issues arise if users make incorrect choices during the out-of-box experience.

The deployment requires one person to create user profiles and assign relevant permissions, though two to three people may be needed for advanced features.

Business process-wise, Microsoft Entra ID makes managing users and IT infrastructure easier.

The pricing is fair compared to other products, and I would rate it a five out of ten for value for money.

No other solutions were evaluated.

For seamless integrations with other services, Microsoft Entra ID is likely the easiest tool. I would recommend it to others.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Azure AD to implement Conditional Access policies and privileged access management.

There are plenty of benefits. First, as we had Microsoft AD on-premises, it was very easy to configure Azure AD. We are using the password hash sync for authentication, so authentication on the cloud is very seamless when users use applications on the cloud. That is very important.

Also, with the help of sign-in logs, we are getting information about every application, such as where a user is trying to log in and from which device, making things very crystal clear. We only get this type of transparency and accuracy only from Azure AD.

We use the Conditional Access feature to fine-tune access. We implement a lot of access policies. For example, we want to get rid of client machines with Windows XP and some legacy applications, so we created access policies to prevent logins from those devices and those applications. We have also created policies to prevent logins from certain areas around the world. These abilities are very helpful in preventing phishing and scams.

In addition, there are so many tasks and activities that are automated in Azure AD. For example, we have enabled the password reset self-service so that users can reset a password themselves and log in to their accounts. That is one way it saves time for our help desk team. It no longer requires the help desk. From an administrative perspective, it's very convenient for us to manage and maintain the users of the organization. Azure AD is saving us 10 to 12 hours per week, and that's for just one person who would otherwise be responsible for resetting passwords.

The solution has also prevented so many potential cyber attacks, and that has saved us money. And by saving man-hours, we have saved money. Thirdly, we have been able to reduce manpower. I would estimate it has saved us 20 percent in terms of costs.

Another benefit is that, from a user perspective, it is very smooth and easy to sign in to all the Microsoft applications with the Azure AD sign-in. The UI is very intuitive for Microsoft accounts, so it's very easy for them to log in. We also have single sign-on enabled for desktops, so whenever a user signs in to an application on their machine, they don't need to sign in again and again. With the help of the same token, all other applications can be opened easily.

Two very important features in terms of security are governance and compliance through the Conditional Access policies and Azure Log Analytics.

Also, Azure AD provides a single pane of glass for managing user access.

I mainly work with the Microsoft Security portal so I can get access and privileges to maintain all the security policies, including Conditional Access policies and privilege access management for just-in-time access, as well as Azure AD sign-in logs. These factors are very important.

When it comes to managing identity, we have E5 licenses. We are using every application from Office 365, so it is very easy for us to manage identity with the help of all those applications. We are also using third-party applications that are integrated with Azure AD and that makes access management easy.

From an admin perspective, I would like to see improvement in the Microsoft Graph API.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for six to seven years.

There are some bugs that we find monthly or quarterly, but all the bugs are fixed by Microsoft.

It is scalable.

We have it deployed in Europe and there are about 15,000 users.

I received good technical support when syncing on-premises users to Azure AD. It was very smooth. But for help with Conditional Access, I got poor support.

Neutral

We had on-premises AD and then we introduced Azure AD. We synced all the users from on-premises to Azure AD. Then, with Office 365, we installed Exchange Online and Teams. For single sign-on we have ADFS [Active Directory Federation Services] on-premises, but now we are migrating our applications to Azure AD SSO for single sign-on.

The initial deployment was very straightforward. It only took a day to deploy. The plan was first to get information about our on-premises Active Directory users, computers, and groups, and then we had to determine how many licenses and which types of licenses we needed for those. We also had to think about which type of authentication method we were going to use.

Our deployment involved three to four people.

Maintenance is just checking for updates.

Personally, I feel Microsoft is very costly compared to other products. That is also what management is thinking. But when we consider security and support, Microsoft is better than any other product. It is somehow justified, but I feel it is costly.

I have worked with Okta but for single sign-on only. It does not provide all the features or meet all our demands.

If you want secure data and secure identities, go for Microsoft Azure AD.

We use it for authentication. Where we have cloud services, it syncs with Active Directory on-prem. We have about 1,800 people using it.

It's a very scalable solution.

The ability to manage and authenticate against on-premises solutions would be beneficial.

We have been using Azure Active Directory for about four years.

We have had very little requirement for technical support. It's a cloud solution.

We didn't use a different solution. We brought this in when we went into what was called Microsoft 365 in those days.

The setup was pretty straightforward. In terms of maintaining it, we have a team of six infrastructure engineers, and Azure AD is just one of the systems that they manage.

We did it in-house.

It's included within a wider bundle of Microsoft 365 products.

You need to make sure you've thought through how you're going to deal with your on-prem applications because having a hybrid solution like ours brings some challenges.

Ultimately, we will move completely into Azure AD, but we have a lot of on-prem applications and you can't use Azure Active Directory with them. Until we remove those applications and make things cloud-only, we will still need a hybrid solution.

Microsoft Authenticator is the tool provided to assure that we are using the Microsoft product in the correct way, from the Microsoft point of view.

It's two-factor authentication. I personally use several of them, from Google to Microsoft Authenticator to others. It's a solution that works.

The solution is stable. 

The product is easy to install and quick to deploy.

The solution is secure.

It offers good Microsoft integration capabilities. 

For the moment, I don't have any complaints. 

The pricing is okay, however, it could always be better in the future.

It is a stable, reliable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

In terms of scalability, we don't have complaints about this from the users of this kind of solution.

Several people in our company use the product. I am unsure of the exact number. 

When we have problems, we don't go to Microsoft; we complain internally to a group that is responsible for keeping this working. I can't speak to how Microsoft's support is. I've never directly interacted with them.

Positive

I also use Google Authenticator.

I need to use different services to log on. Microsoft promotes its own solutions. For my bank, for instance, I have a solution imposed by my bank. For Google, I have Google Authenticator. For Microsoft Plus. I have Microsoft Authenticator. For our VPN, we use FortiGate, the authenticator.

The installation is easy. You can do the installation on mobile phones and it can be installed on the web. It's not a problem.

The deployment is fast and only takes about two minutes. It's supposed to be done by the end-user.

I have done the implementation myself. I did not need the assistance of any integrators or consultants.

I don't pay a separate licensing fee. It's already included in the service we buy from Microsoft.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is deployed on a public cloud. We are using Microsoft Azure.

There is on-premises AD and cloud AD. We are able to sync the solution and use the load technology and password management features.

The most valuable features in Active Directory are the password writeback product and the MDM technology.

The on-premises AD comes with a lot of options and group policies. With the group policies, we are using screen saver a lot, and it is messing up Azure AD and isn't working effectively. We are also using MDM technology through Azure. For Android the MDM technology is okay, but it doesn't work properly on iPhones.

When we do a screen share and screenshots, it doesn't work on the iPhone. For Android, it will only work for Outlook, which is provided in the company portal.

I would like to see the group policies on the same platform on cloud.

We have been using this solution for almost two years.

The solution is stable and everything is working. In terms of connecting the web application, there is technology for single sign-on. When we use it, the solution opens very slowly. It might be a bandwidth issue, and some content will not work on that portal.

The solution is scalable. We haven't had any issues.

We have 500 people using this solution in our company. We have increased usage, and we have plans to increase more. 

Technical support is very good. They work quickly to resolve any issues.

We are using an earlier non-premises AD, but we want to move to the cloud setup, which is easier for end users and everyone else due to the pandemic situation.

Setup was straightforward. Implementation took three months.

For the deployment process, we had a technical team of two people who did everything. They are engineers.

We used a consultant for deployment. I think we used a Microsoft partner.

It was a good experience and not very complicated. I think I realized that they are not seeing many implementations. There's a tool in Microsoft Azure called an endpoint security tool, and they don't know how to implement it.

We have a yearly license.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

This product is very nice. It's a legacy application, so the people using it are very familiar with it.