Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

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 the solution for single sign-on, provisioning, de-provisioning, conditional access, and identity governance.

The access governess feature improves our compliance.

Privilege Identity Management is the most valuable feature.

The licensing and support are expensive and have room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

The support is really good.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. The time required for deployment will vary depending on the features that we plan to use. Typically, two to three weeks should be sufficient for deployment.

The implementation was completed in-house.

We have seen a return on investment.

I give the cost a three out of ten. The licensing is expensive.

We evaluated Google Cloud Identity.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Two to three engineers are required for the Maintenance. The majority of the maintenance is completed by Microsoft.

I recommend the solution to others.

We deployed the solution across multiple geographical areas.

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.

The solution allows us to assign and give the access and controls. It allows us to monitor privileges with the users so that we can then be in control of the access given to digital resources.

The best example of how it has helped our organization is when we migrated toward Azure. We were able to take all the users which were there on-prem and migrated them over. If those facilities were not there in Azure Active Directory, then we would likely have to create individual users and one by one give them specific access. We'd have to look at their needs and set authentication. It would be hard to control users that needed higher admin-level access. Without the Active Directory, we would not have the control we needed. 

Azure AD has features that have helped improve our security posture. That's one of the basic fundamentals of having an Active Directory. The whole concept of Azure Active Directory came from the Active Directory on-prem version. There’s this tunnel of authentication that it has.

When you migrate, you can migrate your Active Directory on-prem onto the Azure Active Directory which has tightly integrated features due to the fact that they both are from Microsoft. Based on that, you can give access based on what privileges are needed. Basically, if you're talking about security, everything is related to role-based access. The security aspect is linked to providing the proper access.

My understanding is, in the future, they will be able to bring everything into one single platform and they are not there yet. We are loving third-party authentication, however, those authentications will be further scrutinized by AD itself.

For example, if you want to book a flight, you go to any website to book. Booking the flight can be divided into two parts. One is creating a log-in with a particular website and then booking. However, if there are five to ten websites and you want to compare prices on all of them. You aren’t going to set up a log-in for each and every site. That's not feasible.

Instead, you can use your own login credentials, for example, from your Hotmail or Google account. Then, you have a token authenticated by Google, et cetera, which gives you the privilege to do the booking for a particular session. This is similar to what Azure AD should do in the future for authentication and allowing access.

I've been using the solution for at least four to five years. 

The stability is good. It's always there. If it is down then that's it. Anyone can log in. Anyone can do anything, whatever they want to do. That's why it's considered the backbone of the security pillar. There has never been any downtime, however.

Azure AD is scalable. You don't need to take care of it as it's a part of the service which is taken care of by Azure itself based on how our company grows. Basically, it's a hidden feature, and scaling it for the end-user is always happening. It's always scaling.

We have about 3,000 users on Azure AD currently.

I've been working as an architect and therefore have never directly dealt with technical support. 

I work on different platforms. For example, I work on AWS and GCP (Google Cloud Platform), et cetera. Azure AD is very good and very powerful and offers a basic foundation having the highest status or dominance in terms of providing access management. It's tightly getting integrated with the on-premise solutions. That’s true irrespective of what cloud you're using - whether GCP, AWS, Oracle, or IBM - whatever the cloud provider, you're using the services you will be using a laptop or dashboard.

We are now working remotely. However, having remote access doesn't mean that you are not entering the company premises virtually. Basically, everything is going through your company's network. You're just going through to a cloud. You can move across platforms to validate. You can still use the AWS site to authenticate and verify the users. No matter the cloud, you’re still using Azure AD to get access.

I wouldn't say the initial setup is complex. If you have a good understanding of the product, you can break down your tasks. Then, slowly, step by step you can complete all the tasks.

Our operations team did the migration from on-prem AD to Azure AD. Therefore, I cannot speak to the exact length of time it took. My work was to design the architect and provide them with the solution. 

I have clients who have seen an ROI.

I'm not a Microsoft partner. I work as a consultant.

I'm predominantly using the SaaS deployment version. 

My advice to potential users is on the security side. There was a famous article on Gartner which clearly stated that by the end of about 2023 or 2024 if someone tries to access your network or if anything becomes accessible or has been exposed, it is not the cloud provider that is the problem. It is due to a misconfiguration of the services.

It's not really with the user. It's really with how and what kind of access you provide to that user. For example, if I give someone an admin status, and they provide access to someone, they are providing not only basic access, they’re giving access privilege or admin rights. If they’re giving admin rights to the wrong person, even though they may have the best intentions, due to a lack of knowledge, that person may do something stupid and it may be a disaster to the company. That has nothing to do with the AD users themselves. You need to be aware of the security and the access that you're granting your users at all times.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

When a customer is trying to synchronize user information from their on-premises environment to the cloud, they might be encountering a series of errors or they may not be able to achieve what they are trying to achieve. They will raise a ticket so that somebody can help resolve the problem or clarify the situation and explain what the workflow should be like. That's where I often come in.

My support scope is focused on the synchronization aspect of Azure Active Directory. My specialty covers scenarios where customers have information in their on-premises environment and they want to synchronize their Active Directory information into the cloud with Azure Active Directory.

In addition to getting on calls and assisting customers to resolve issues, we also try to help educate customers on how to achieve the best results with Microsoft products.

In terms of the security posture of my customers, in the area of my specialization—the synchronization of information from on-premises to the cloud—there's an aspect we call TLS. There was a version of TLS that was not really secure, but Microsoft has now pushed and made sure that everything running in its platform uses a higher version, TLS 1.2. That means that when you are doing directory synchronization, your machine and your product need to be TLS 1.2 enabled. Microsoft is always working on enforcing the use of the most secure means to carry out whatever workloads customers are running. While my day-to-day job does not involve an emphasis on security, the areas that do involve security elements are emphasized to make things work effectively.

It also helps when you're troubleshooting. If you have an issue, it's easier for a user to look at it and say, "Okay, this is the problem," and to work on it.

An aspect of Azure's synchronization technology is called the provisioning service. It's the technology that takes user information from Azure AD into third-party applications. If a company has hundreds of users that already exist in the cloud, and it now wants to enable those same users to be present in third-party applications that their business uses, like Atlassian or GoToMeeting, the provisioning technology can assist in achieving that.

Over the years, the performance of this particular technology has greatly improved. I have seen its evolution and growth. Customers see much more robust performance from that technology and it gives them an easy way to set up their environments. The product has been designed quite well and customer feedback has also been taken into consideration. You can even see the progress of the process: how the user is being created and sent over to the third-party application.

Recently, Microsoft has developed lightweight synchronization software, the Cloud Provisioning Agent, to do the job of the preceding, heavier version called AD Connect. You can do a lot more with AD Connect, but it can take a lot of expertise to manage and maintain it. As a result, customers were raising a lot of tickets. So Microsoft developed the lightweight version. However, there are still a lot of features that the Cloud Provisioning Agent lacks. I would like to see it upgraded. 

The Cloud Provisioning Agent cannot provision a lot of the information that AD Connect does. For starters, the lightweight version cannot synchronize device information. If you have computers on-premises, the information about them will not be synchronized by the Cloud Provisioning Agent. In addition, if you have a user on the cloud and he changes his password, that information should be written back to the on-premises instance. But that workflow cannot be done with the lightweight agent. It can only be done with the more robust version.

I believe the Cloud Provisioning Agent will be upgraded eventually, it's just a matter of time.

I've been using the Azure Active Directory platform for a little over three years. I started supporting the product in October of 2018.

Our company is a Microsoft partner. When Microsoft customers raise tickets, most of these tickets get routed to partners like us. I follow up on and assist customers when they have issues that relate to my area of expertise.

Azure AD is solid because of the way the product is designed and because the people who support it are very good.

Microsoft is a very big organization. Whenever they put products on the market, they take things like scalability into consideration. They make sure the life cycle of the product matches the demands and the usage of customers. This product should have a long life in the market.

Microsoft technical support is great. Fantastic. Microsoft is looking to push the capabilities of its products, to enable customers to achieve more.

In general, there has been improvement in the way the technology can be used by end-users. Their feedback has been taken into consideration and that has helped a great deal.

Azure AD has features that have been developed purely for the security of users. It has things like Conditional Access policies and MFA. But the nature of the support that I provide in Azure AD doesn't focus on security. While Azure AD gives a company a holistic way to manage user profiles, I don't usually work on security aspects. But I do know that, to a large extent, the solution is built using the latest security.

The provisioning service I support has authentication methods. There has been a push by Microsoft to move customers away from certain authentication mechanisms that are not very strong in terms of security, and to make sure that secure standards are being enforced. I have looked at integrations set up by customers where they have only done the basic minimum in terms of security. Microsoft had to push those customers towards a much more secure setup. So customers are getting better security.

Overall, the effect of the product on my customers' experience has been good. I generally come into the picture when customers are having an issue. Most customers I've interacted with don't understand some information or why the product is designed the way it is. When I explain that it has to be this way so that they can do what they need to do, the customer feedback comes in at about an eight out of 10.