Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We manage local users in the Microsoft Entra ID environment. 

The tool's most valuable features are security and integration with other tenants. 

The product takes at least ten minutes to activate privilege identity management roles. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

The tool's stability is good. 

Microsoft Entra ID's support is good. 

The tool's deployment is easy. However, documentation is not helpful. 

The product is cheap. It is free for our tenant. 

I rate the product a seven out of ten. 

Azure AD helps us manage application and hybrid identities.

I like Azure AD's conditional access policies. Microsoft Entra provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, improving the overall user experience. 

The workflow management for registering new applications and users could be improved.

I have used Azure AD for about eight years.

Azure AD is stable.

Azure AD is scalable. 

Azure AD is so stable and easy to administer that we don't need to contact support. 

Setting up Azure AD is straightforward. 

I rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of ten. You should use premium licenses or Azure directly whenever possible to take advantage of the new security features since E3. 

We use it for identity and access management for cloud-based applications.

A couple of features are valuable, but the one that comes across the most to me is multi-factor authentication. That is huge because, with the promise of cloud—the ease and flexibility—comes a challenge of security. That means organizations are quite susceptible to cyber security threats and attacks. Nowadays, because assets have moved from the on-premises environment to the cloud, identity has become a new parameter. 

MFA is the most valuable feature because it only takes threat actors who keep guessing the password—even a password with a high degree of complexity, given all the tools available to crack them—to gain access. Then they are able to steal identity information and all the digital assets of an organization. 

We, ourselves, experienced a "near miss" but we were able to detect it at a very early stage and then immediately implement multi-factor authentication, which of course means that in addition to the regular user ID and password, there's another key requirement for validating and verifying the true identity. That's been very valuable to us and to our clients.

We also use Entra’s Conditional Access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls. It's all about taking a further step and layering additional controls to prevent unwanted access. It helps with Zero Trust, ensuring that we can protect assets. The entire paradigm is to make sure that you do not grant access to any potential user without verifying and properly validating who that entity is. That's most invaluable because you can identify a set of conditions that are unique to the organization. They can be related or linked to the profile of the organization and, based on that, you can grant access. Microsoft, from what we've seen, is at the forefront. They're actually spot-on with that.

Using wild imagination, I am thinking about to what extent AAD can integrate with products in a seamless way, such as applications that are running on-premises and making use of on-premises directory services. The most common, of course, is Azure Active Directory Domain Services. To what extent can it be used to replace the on-premises Active Directory Domain Services? Even though they are similar in concept, they are totally separate products. 

I would like to see applications that make use of on-premises Active Directory Domain Services have the ability to also seamlessly make use of Azure Active Directory.

And when it comes to identity and access life cycle management for applications that are run on-premises, as well as access governance, if those kinds of capabilities could be built into Azure Active Directory, that would be good.

I have been using Azure Active Directory since 2015.

It's very stable. I don't think I can recall a major outage of Microsoft's products or services. 

There could be outages impacting other services, and over time, you do experience degradation. But what makes it work is that Microsoft has a lot of resilience built into its cloud architecture.

It's highly scalable. I've worked on projects where we have to deploy Active Directory for in excess of 12,000 users.

More than 90 percent of the people in our organization are using Azure Active Directory.

Overall, I'm satisfied. In some cases, there are incidents that take some time to resolve, but those are more exceptions than they are the rule. We seem to find such cases when we have situations with on-premises workloads, technologies that are not yet in the cloud.

But for the most part, in recent times, on average we tend to have quicker resolutions, relatively speaking, for issues that have to do with the cloud product. 

What I consider to be the aspect that makes the experience good for us is that we get support for all the products. We have access to Premier Support and that enhances the quality of our experience.

Neutral

It's quite easy to set up.

The time needed to set up Azure Active Directory is a function of the environment. For simple deployments, it can be done within hours or within a day. But for complex environments, it might take anywhere from two weeks and up. You need to go through an environment assessment and make use of a project delivery framework.

For example, suppose a customer already has on-premises Active Directory services, and the requirement is to deploy or implement a hybrid identity architecture. That means there are workloads on-premises and in the cloud, and the customer wants to use the same identity scheme or single sign-on. Those are the type of requirements that determine how long it will take to get Azure Active Directory set up.

Deployment generally requires a project manager, an engagement manager, and an architect; a minimum of three people. And if there are other specific solution domains that require specialist skills, it could be four.

There is zero maintenance. The focus, in my own experience, is typically around security: how you're monitoring the environment to ensure that it's still secure. And when there are incidents, to what extent, and how quickly, you can triage and pinpoint and remediate to keep the infrastructure secure? But the actual is maintenance is zero.

It will save us money eventually, even though that's not the case now. For example, for HR, with onboarding and exits, we're beginning to see that this is an area where Entra can help us manage the life cycle of identities. The convenience that comes with that, and how that also helps ensure security and compliance, are areas that Entra can help us with.

The pricing of Azure Active Directory is competitive. By default, the product exists in almost every Microsoft cloud product. But it then depends on the features that a customer really wants to make use of. The extent of the security requirements will inform what kind of plan will be suitable for the customer's situation.

As a business, we have always been cloud-native, so we've always been making use of Azure Active Directory. The very fact that that's what drives our productivity platform, both for ensuring that employees are well engaged and they can deliver on productivity, and meet customer requirements and demands, means we haven't looked at alternatives.

Regarding Entra, the expectation is that when it is deployed, the employee experience should be better. We haven't started exploiting all the features of Entra. It makes use of the core Active Directory: identity and access management, conditional access, et cetera. But we're not making use of all its features at the moment. We hope to implement them in the near future.

Overall, I'm satisfied.

We primarily use the solution for MFA; to access apps such as Teams or Outlook, two-factor authentication with our mobile phones is required.

We also use Authenticator to assist our clients with re-enrolling, moving, and adding new devices. 

The solution helps us keep our data secure and prevents security breaches, malware, etc. The app also provides us with options regarding our authentication preferences.

The two-factor authentication provides an additional layer of security for our organizational data, so Microsoft Authenticator plays a crucial role in making our confidential data more secure.

The solution offers multiple authentication methods via text, call, or the app. This gives us many options and flexibility when it comes to MFA.

Our users sometimes experience issues from having multiple Microsoft accounts, which can cause some confusion and hassle.

It would be good to see the incorporation of fingerprints and Face IDs as authentication options. This would simplify the authentication process for end users, especially those who aren't as tech-savvy. It is also a consideration for visually impaired people, for example.

We have been using the solution for about one and a half years. 

Microsoft Authenticator is a very stable application; our only issue is that we run into the occasional bug.

The solution is highly scalable. Many organizations use it around the world. 

The technical support is very good. 

Positive

I used PingID when working for another organization, which is slightly different from Microsoft Authenticator.

I wasn't involved in the initial setup, but the solution is straightforward to use once installed. 

The solution requires a little maintenance, as we sometimes encounter bugs where the app doesn't recognize a user account, for example.

I am not involved in the pricing or licensing, so I can't speak to that. 

I would rate the solution a 10 out of 10.

I would advise potential users to familiarize themselves with the basics of the solution; how to set up an account, how to use the app etc. It's always a good idea to have a clear reason for using a particular solution, how it functions, and what role it fulfills.

Active Directory is used for authentication and provisioning for users and devices and granting them access.

We're in a hybrid mode where we still have on-prem controllers as well.

The beauty is that it affords us more of an anytime, anywhere operation because we're not tied to an on-prem solution. From a customer experience standpoint, users don't really care about what goes on behind the scenes technically. They just want their lives to be easier. Now that they can access Office 365 globally, anywhere from any device, that's huge. That helps productivity and gives them the ability to get work done. And having to manage fewer passwords and user IDs is another true advantage.

The solution gives users seamless integration to all these products and streamlines the user experience. That's definitely been a pro.

In this completely upside-down world that we're in these days, with most people elsewhere and very few people in the office, it gives us tremendous flexibility for keeping people productive and providing them with access to the data and tools that they need to perform their jobs. It has given us the opportunity to move to this more mobile environment.

Also, the SSO aspect improves our security posture because people aren't writing down or creating a list of all their passwords. Now they only have to remember one. It has definitely made it easier for them to manage. In addition, we've introduced MFA so that whenever you sign in, you're also challenged for approval on your mobile device. That adds to the security.

The single sign-on across multiple platforms is really the true advantage here. That gives you one ID and password for access to all your systems. You don't need to manage a plethora of different user IDs and passwords to all the systems that you're going to access. 

The downside is that we now have all our eggs in one basket with Microsoft. We have this great authentication and single sign-on, but if Microsoft has an outage in North America or globally, on Outlook or Teams, we're dead in the water. There is no drop-back-and-punt. There is no "Plan B." The bottom line is that if their services go down, our productivity goes with it. Working with them when we have outages can be very frustrating. We get some type of hiccup once a quarter.

We get service notifications from them all the time that the services are under investigation or that there is some type of issue. More than the headache of not completely understanding the severity, we have to make sure that we communicate with our end-users. We get to the point where we're potentially "crying wolf." We're telling them there's a problem but some people don't have the problem. Then they get to the point where they just ignore our communication.

Outages can last hours, but never more than a day. They can be regional outages where one area is affected and other areas aren't. The advantage is that it could be evening or night in the area that is down, so it's less impactful.

I've been using Azure Active Directory at my current company for just about four years.

My impression of the stability is mixed. If it were really working correctly, it should be able to digest these outages by rerouting us to other areas. But that doesn't happen.

We have a global footprint, so it scales globally, no doubt.

Tech support from Microsoft has been cumbersome for Office 365. We don't really get the answers we want in a timely manner. There are times that we get the runaround, and that's the downside to being an early adopter and being on the leading edge. Sometimes we have to sometimes QA and work out issues with their products, which I'd rather not have to do.

A larger shop, like a Goldman Sachs or a JP Morgan, is not going to adopt this stuff until it's mature. And that means that smaller companies, like ours, have worked out the kinks.

Neutral

Before AAD we used the on-prem version with on-prem controllers. We went with AAD because there was no other option. We had their on-prem solution, and in the evolution directed by our CTO, everything is moving to the cloud. The next logical next step was to move to AAD.

I didn't set it up, the guys who work for me did it. I think it was fairly complex because we're about to go through an acquisition and we are going to merge them into our tenant. We have to outsource some of that work to a third party to assist us with that because we don't have the in-house skills.

Costs are constantly being managed. We don't really have a choice. It's the one shop in town. If you want this, you have to pay for it. We have an E5 license, which I believe is the most expensive license.

From an AAD standpoint, I don't think we've had any issues. The data replicates correctly and no one really has a problem with their credentials from AAD. It's meeting our expectations.

The most valuable features are

• authentication
• authorization
• two-factor authentication
• I have never had a failure.

It's multi-tenant, residing in multiple locations. Authentication happens quickly. Irrespective of whether I'm in Australia, the US, India, or Africa, I don't see any latency. Those are the good features that I rely on.

It also has a variable extension, which is an added value because in Active Directory, if you have to do a schema, you have to make changes on multiple Active Directory instances. But here, as the extension attribute can be done from the application level, it helps you provide the provisioning. 

Another good reason for using Azure AD is that it can connect with other SaaS services. It also has SSOs, which, along with the MFA, makes authentication much easier.

One area where it can improve is connectivity with other systems. Not all systems are connected and you have to do coding to establish a point of connectivity. It supports certain vendors and it supports certain protocols. It is limited in many other aspects at the attribute level.

Also, some of the provisioning filters are not capable enough. You cannot do a date filter on the provisioning.

Perhaps they could also have easy protocols to create the accounts. Instead of just a file upload, they should have an easy connector to do the provisioning part.

I work in a service-based company and I've been using Azure Active Directory for my customers for around 10 years now.

From 2020 to 2022, there have not been more than two or three outages, and none was more than three to four hours long. And those outages may not have occurred the whole time in the entire environment, they may only have been in certain places.

When there is an outage, the end-user experience is affected, but that happens in AWS and in Azure. It happens with any SaaS product. Overall, it has not affected the end-user experience, but when there is an outage in Azure, it will have an impact on our environment.

It's scalable, but if you need more than one region, you have to pay for it. You have to think about how you want the service to be available.

The technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is easy and straightforward. Setting up Azure AD doesn't require you to do anything. You buy the product from Microsoft and Microsoft sets it up for you. You just establish the connectivity to it. It does not take more than a week or two to complete the setup.

The number of employees you require for deployment and maintenance of the solution depends on how you have set up your provisioning platform. If it is automated, you can have one resource. If you're still in manual, then it depends on the volume of the workload.

Licenses are based on the usage. There is no cap. It's based on the number of users we provision.

A SaaS solution is the best product. You get it at a better price and you have many Windows-based services that are included for free.

I would definitely recommend using Azure AD. Many companies are moving from other vendors to Azure because every company uses Office 365 anyway for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. As soon as you use that, by default, you get an Azure AD account. If you have an Azure AD account, you definitely have features to use. Why would you want to go for another product?

Overall, I haven't seen any major issues with the product.

This solution is useful for user management because it is integrated with DNS.

The solution is deployed on cloud and on-premises. We're using the latest version.

We have about 200-250 users. All of our users have local and Active Directory. We don't have plans to increase usage.

It's user friendly.

The solution could be cheaper.

We have been using this solution for about five years.

It's stable.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is good.

Installation is straightforward. It only took a couple of hours to set everything up.

We pay a yearly license. Licenses are very expensive.

Typically, we have applications deployed within the office network that we need to make accessible to our staff outside of the bank. Some of them are also our clients, but mainly, this is for people working in the region.

So without having to put them behind firewalls, what we opted to do is publish them to the proxy. This means that they can then come in via a secure port and begin to access the resources as if they were internally and securely within the network.

The most valuable feature is the ability to set up conditional access, where you can enforce users to connect using multifactor authentication. This is one of the things that we are using it for. It means that users who are accessing the applications remotely are authentic.

Technical support could be faster.

I have been using this product for three years.

This solution is stable and we plan to increase our usage.

It is a scalable product. It can be deployed in a highly available manner, where you have to have two or three connectors. We have approximately 7,000 users.

We are satisfied with the technical support from Microsoft, although it could be faster.

This product is part of our enterprise license and we did not previously use a different one.

This is a cloud service, so the initial setup is straightforward. It is not complex.

For each request, it does not take very long.

We deployed this product ourselves.

No staff is required for maintenance.

This product is sold as part of the enterprise package and our licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis. You can get it as an add-on and it's not expensive.

I have not evaluated other solutions, which makes it difficult to tell what additional features I would like to see in the future. It is sufficient and adequate for our current use case.

In our current use case, there is nothing that is lacking. This is definitely a product that I can recommend for other users.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.