Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We are using it for central management, MDM, SSO, MFA, applying policies.

In terms of the features that I have found most valuable, it is cloud based so it is always updated, that part you don't have to take care of. It is public cloud. It is actually AD as a service, so it's a kind of an infrastructure. It is more infrastructure as a service.

We had some issues with the migration of users from the local user accounts to Azure AD. It was more like a local issue and had nothing to do with the Azure AD itself. It works fine for SSO, the Single Sign On. We were not able to do the integration very easily with ADP, so that was a challenge, but later on it was resolved. We had to do a lot of things to have that on the configuration. Some systems do not integrate very well with Azure AD. We thought of going for Okta, but later on we were able to achieve it, but not the way we wanted. It was not as easy as we thought it would be, the integration was not very seamless.

Additionally, it would be great if they added support for more applications in terms of integration for SSO. That's the only thing that I find missing for Azure AD.

We have been using Azure Active Directory for the last six months. We didn't do any migration from on-premise Active Directory to Azure AD on the cloud. What we did when we were setting up the computers was to join users to Azure AD and apply some conditional policies and everything works fine. We don't have any issues. The only thing we face are some problems with some computers because they were using it locally and we had a lot of data. So when we did the migration to Azure AD, we also had to move all the user settings data, the complete user profile, to the Azure AD account, as well. That was a challenge, but I was able to use ProfWiz to move data between user profile.

There are not any bugs or glitches that I can recall. So far everything is working well.

Scalability is one of the reasons we selected Azure Active Directory. It scales very well.

For now there are almost a hundred users using it, but we are adding more.

We contacted support only one time and it was not related to SSO. We had some questions about their subscription and it was good.

When I was working with another company, we were using on-premise Azure Active Directory. We didn't want to invest in the infrastructure to maintain it, to get the license, so it was not very cost effective for us. We had a meeting with the management and saw that Azure AD would be very cost effective, scalable, and more secure, especially in terms of SSO and MFA, which were some of our requirements. We didn't want Active Directory on premise. It was not easy to do the migration.

The initial setup is not very difficult, especially if you start using it straight away. But if you do the migration, I think that might be a challenge. Fortunately, we started directly from Azure AD, we didn't have to do any migration from Azure AD On-premise to the cloud. It was pretty straightforward and easy. We didn't face any difficulties.

It depends on their requirements and what they are trying to achieve. One shoe does not fit all feet, so that's why it might be different from company to company. For us, it met all our requirements. It was very scalable, which is huge, and just always available. You don't have to be very worried about maintaining your own hardware, your own infrastructure, updating the servers from time to time or caring about securing your on-premise infrastructure. Azure AD is a good solution. I am satisfied with it so far and everything works great.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Azure Active Directory a nine.

We are a software development company and solution provider, and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

This is an easy way to give users access to applications. I can share access with other organizations outside of our network.

This solution is easy to manage.

The ability to grant access to other organizations is helpful.

It integrates well with a large number of applications.

Microsoft needs to add a single setup, so whenever resources join the company or are leaving the company, all of the changes can be made with a single click.

I would like to see a secure, on-premises gateway that offers connectivity between the physical servers and the cloud. The capability already exists, but it is not secure enough when the setting is marked private.

I have been using Microsoft Azure Active Directory Premium for about a year.

In the time that I have been using Microsoft Azure, I haven't had any problem with stability.

This is the right platform if you are looking for scalability. We have more than 100,000 users.

We have not needed to use technical support. 

We have a couple of contacts in the Microsoft team, so we will reach out to them in case we have any questions.

I have recently been working with Okta, and I find that most organizations are moving toward it. With this in mind, I think that Microsoft has to take care, and consider why so many people are switching. The most important reason is the single setup. Once they set up Okta, it's easy for the organization.

I have been working in Microsoft Azure for a long time and I find the initial setup to be easy.

For maintenance, we have a team of 20 administrators and developers.

Licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis and the cost depends on the number of users. There are no charges in addition to this.

The suitability of this solution depends on the technology and the environment at the organization. Many companies are still transitioning to the cloud, leaving part or all of their data on-premises. Ultimately, it depends on the data that they have and their preference or requirements for keeping it on-premises. In some cases, people want to move only non-private data to the cloud. All of these things have to be considered before implementing Azure Active Directory.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to simplify directory deployment and centralize source of management. Within our own consulting business, we choose to use Azure AD.

The centralized management feature is very valuable. Being able to delete stuff in one place, from any location is really great for us. In addition, we do not have to deploy lots of machines all over the place to run things as a service, which is how we like to deploy things, just as a service. So, this makes it easier to deploy, easy to set up, and work with. It is easy to use, and makes quality of life issues a reality for us.

It would be nice if it had some visualization tools. A bit of visualization would be really nice to show your Azure directory structure. It would be very good because you might have sub-domains and odds-and-ends going on. So, a bit of visualization would be really good. Being able to plug it directly into the video to produce models would be a really nice feature.

Less than one year.

The stability is really good. We have not had an issue with it at all. It is always there for us.  As a part of what Microsoft seems to be doing, it is taking away from what dedicated machines that you have to fiddle and tinker with to run services on, and turning them into services you can just access.

My experience with tech support has been really good. I have had a couple of issues where I have logged the ticket with Microsoft, and I had someone on the phone with me regarding the ticket within a half an hour. It was a real technician who really knew what he was talking about. I was very impressed.

We had a problem related to Office 365 and Skype, and not being able to generate a Skype session when everything else seemed to be working. The tech support helped us fix the situation. They have a good depth of knowledge  and it is not just people reading off a script. They are real users, with real experience.

The initial deployment and setup was pretty straightforward. It is pretty easy. It is not that hard to get going, and the thing is that it is quick to integrate well with your Windows.

If you have an existing environment that consists of on-prem AD based environment, then you will want to go with Azure AD. You need to talk to your service provider, or your in-house IT team. Get them involved to help. We did so, and then we just set up a whole new domain and got rid of the old one, and set up the new one on Azure AD. Microsoft will help walk you through the process.

It looks like they're just making everything as a service and it is pay per user, and that just works for me. It's really good. Gets the cost down and lets you scale if you need it.

It is easy to use, straightforward, and in my language. It does exactly what is says, and does not pretend to be anything else.

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.

We primarily use the solution with our customers that use it.

We're using the solution for a lot of all different things. We have used it to support. We have something called BankID here in Sweden, where you identify yourself to your internet bank and lots of other areas and we have based our connection to BankID using Active Directory. 

It's user-friendly and easy to understand. It's doing work great so far.

We're mainly using templates and using the APIs rather than using the GUI. That's the easiest way to do things.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

The solution scales well.

It's a stable product for the most part.

Something that can be improved is their user interface. It needs to be better.

It's always a good idea to have some kind of expert GUI that you can turn on/off. There are a lot of settings to work through. If you are not that experienced, then maybe you might not want to use them. 

There should be an easier way to set up the regular things and then switch to a more expert kind of wizard to set things up.

We've used the product for many, many years at this point. 

The solution is stable. There aren't issues with bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is good.

We can scale the solution if we need to.

It is my understanding that support is not as good as Cloudflare, however, I haven't been using the support that much for Azure. There is lots of information out there on the internet. If you search, you don't need to contact support often.

The solution has been straightforward to set up. It's simple. It's not overly complex. 

We have a handful of people involved in the initial setup. You don't need very many. They are mostly specialists and technicians. 

While I don't directly deal with tracking ROI, our customers are satisfied with the way we are billing them when we're setting things up. 

The pricing seems to be fine for our clients.

We are an integrator. We are using the latest versions of the product.

New users should know that it's quite easy to set up a sandbox environment and a free account in order to play with it. It's fairly easy to kind of set up the proof of concept.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I am a cloud engineer, and I do a lot of administrative work that involves creating new infrastructure for our applications. Whenever I create infrastructure, I have to install it on our Active Directory and then set it up. This is how it was that I started working with Azure Active Directory.

Once the infrastructure is set up, I usually proceed to create user groups and user IDs inside Active Directory. After they are created, I set up and configure them based on the requirements of the organization, including the access required for different groups and users.

We deal with a lot of health information that we have to keep confidential, so having the Azure cloud security policies in place, such that nothing is exposed to the outside world, is helpful for us.

The security and infrastructure management features are the most valuable ones for us.

It offers multifactor authentication for setting up development pipelines.

Better deployment management and visibility functionality would be helpful. There is a lot of room for improvement in our infrastructure, and in particular, when we create something, we have to visit a lot of websites. This makes life more difficult for us.

When we deploy new infrastructure, it begins with a lengthy approval process. For example, as an administrator, I may receive an infrastructure request from one of our developers. The developer might need access to our front-end, where all of the servers are deployed. The problem is that we don't know exactly what has been deployed within our servers, so better visibility would be helpful.

It's a closed infrastructure, and every developer gets an individualized container. We don't know exactly which features have been provided to them and it's a roundabout process to log back into Active Directory and see exactly what permissions have been assigned. It requires returning to a specific feature and looking at the specific user.

I have been working with Azure Active Directory for just over three and a half years.

This is a highly reliable solution and we plan to continue using it.

Right now, we have 5,000 users that are deployed on Azure Active Directory. Every internal user account that's been created has some sort of multifactor authentication attached to it.

Right now, there isn't a plan to increase our usage. I think we have reached our maximum capacity and if we have to add on something else, then we have to use another tenant or figure out a different way to do it.

We have a team of 15 people who deal with tickets related to this solution.

We constantly have the chance to engage with Microsoft regarding Azure Active Directory. They provide full-time support, so for any issues that we face, we just create a ticket. When we have issues, we quickly get someone from the Azure support team to help us out.

Prior to using Azure Active Directory, we had our own Active Directory. Once we started migrating our applications to Azure, we began moving away from our traditional implementation.

The initial deployment process takes a couple of days for us, although exactly how long depends upon the type of deployment. If you have new deployments then I suggest creating an automated script that will kick it off because this will save time. If on the other hand, there is something that is already deployed and it needs to be redeployed, it doesn't take longer than a couple of hours.

It only takes one person to deploy. It is done on a ticket basis, as requested by people like our developers.

This product provides added value to the company.

In summary, this is a good product and it has been helpful for us, but without doing the proper research, I wouldn't recommend starting with Azure Active Directory. Migrating all of your user accounts and then your resources from different domains to an Azure Active Directory is a huge task. It means that you have set up to create everything from scratch, so without doing proper research, you may run into problems.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is single sign-on, and if a company is going to use Azure AD, a lot of what they are looking for is to manage those sign-ins and logins and have a single place for it to be.

I've been in the Azure space since it started out and in the Microsoft Cloud AD since the BPOS days in the early 2000s, and it's just a product that made life simpler for my clients to be able to integrate everything.

The self-password reset if its enabled and configured properly, really helps a company be able to reset rather than getting IT involved. 

Additionally, the capability of adding that single sign-on for other pieces that you might want to run through Azure Active Directory, such as Office 365 or Salesforce or any number of different third party authentications that you need can be done through Azure Directory Premium.

One of the things with Windows 10 as a company client's software is that they're using it on laptops, desktops, or whatever. In Active Directory Premium, you can control the sign-in and the spaces where documents might be kept on that device with Active Directory Premium and the rights management piece.

Documentation I think is always the worst part with what Azure's doing right now across the board. You may run into an issue you get a technician that says, "Here, look at all these links through self-documentation, and then make comments to it if you want to change it or do something." It's just that the documentation itself, is not very friendly to somebody who is just going in to it. If I had to turn it over to a customer, I just don't think that documentation is that friendly to somebody who does not have in-depth knowledge.

Three to five years.

My impressions of the stability of the product are that it is a pretty good product. I have seen one outage in the last three years, where it just would not work. It only lasted an hour. It was a pretty big deal, but other than that it has been very dependable.

It scales really easy. It's just adding more scales. It is eally easily as far as number of users are concerned, if you're talking about scaling into other apps or other things that you have. Again, there's a configuration curve there. But, if you're scaling applications or services, then there can be a little more difficulty in that.

It's hit or miss. I've had more success in the last probably eight months than I had prior to that. If there's one downfall to their tech support, it's too compartmentalized. So if you're talking AD Premium, and again, with all of the different pieces to it. If you have a single sign-on issue, you might get a different technician than you would get for a joining a VM to Azure AD or whatever. They compartmentalize their tech support, and I will say to myself, "Well, just give me a guy that knows what's going on." But, then they get very compartmentalized in their tech support. They have to bring somebody else in, or have to research or do whatever. So, that's the one criticism that I have. Response has been excellent. They get you well within their SOAs, depending on what you've got paid for tech support.

It's pretty straightforward depending on what your needs are.

Licensing is easy.

The biggest piece of advice is if you're planning for all applications that need authentication, and making sure that all applications that need authentication or that you're going against, that you're using the premium parts of Active Directory for, are compliant with the solution and not finding out afterwards.

We use it for access and identity management.

Microsoft Entra ID has improved the way we administer the technology. One strong capability is our ability to use single sign-on. Using identity is an important component of our security, so we have been able to consolidate. Instead of having to manage users for different applications, we use single sign-on. We use Microsoft Entra ID to be the core of identity management across all applications. We have the capability to do so, so it reduces the burden of onboarding, offboarding, and giving different permissions because we have a centralized way to handle that.

Microsoft Entra ID does a pretty good job of providing a single pane of glass for managing user access. For zero trust and the more modern security approaches, it is key to have a single pane of glass. We are able to be very regimented and have processes that are repeatable and reproducible. It provides that consistency, so it is easier to be very consistent.

Microsoft Entra ID has helped to save time for our IT administrators, but I would have a hard time quantifying that. We do not have a lot of users. We are dealing with hundreds of users and not thousands or tens of thousands of users. We are able to use logic and rules to handle most permissioning versus having to do administrative things manually. There is less touch. We touch it only when we have to troubleshoot. If we have a good set of rules, it handles what we need to handle.

The user management groups are valuable. It is a pretty basic product, but user management, in general, is valuable with the ability to differentiate between business lines and add different policies, group-based management, and dynamic user groups.

Allowing for more customization would be very useful. There is a limited metadata capability. When you look at a user, there are only six pieces of information you can see, but organizations are way more complex, so having that metadata available and being able to use that for dynamic user groups and other policies would be very helpful.

We have been using Microsoft Entra ID for six years.

For the most part, it is very stable. I am not worried about its stability.

It is very scalable.

Typically, the people who provide us support want to provide good service, but overall, there is a lot of room for improvement because the subject matter experts basically follow the script, and sometimes, they neglect to listen to what we are asking for. We would have already gone through the steps, and we explain it, but we have to repeat ourselves multiple times.

In my past experiences, I have used Okta and the other ones. In my current organization, I have not used any other solution. When I came in, thankfully, we had Azure AD. We stuck with it, and we made that the primary. It is not perfect for sure, but it works very well in the Microsoft ecosystem. It works well together with Intune and other Microsoft solutions. Because we have a single stack in Microsoft, it works very well with Intune. In the past, I have had different identity and access management, and then you have interoperability issues. Even though Microsoft Entra ID is not perfect, there is less of that. You get one vendor, and usually, things work out eventually.

I was not involved in its deployment in my current organization, but I was spearheaded into bringing from a basic use case to a lot more security and a lot more automation and manageability.

Initially, the initial setup was very basic, and then we modernized it and improved it. We used a lot more policy, and dynamic user groups were a big aspect of that single sign-on in the app management, app registration, and various other aspects.

We took a little bit of external help to make sure that our approach was optimized.

It is difficult to quantify that. Because there is the cost of switching, usually, it ends up being a wash.

Pricing could always be better. You pay the premium for Microsoft. Sometimes, it is worth it, and at other times, you wish to have more licensing options, especially for smaller companies.

We are currently not evaluating other options.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID an eight out of ten.