Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We use  Azure Active Directory to provide all the identity services for all of our applications.

As a company, you want effective identity and access management. You are able to achieve this with Azure Active Directory, you are able to manage everything, such as building user provisioning into third-party applications, or single sign-on, and tools to mitigate threats or risky sign-ins. There are a lot of features that are provided.

The solution has some great features, such as identity governance, and user self-service. The Outlook application is very good and is used by a lot of people even if they are using Google services.

Azure Active Directory could improve by having an authentication service for laptops or desktop computers running Mac and Linux operating systems. They currently have authentication capabilities for Microsoft Windows. Having this capability would benefit people because in today's world everybody is working from the home environment.

I have been using Azure Active Directory within the past 12 months.

The solution is stable. There was one global outage that lasted approximately four hours in the past year.

Microsoft has different kinds of support you can have. If you pay then you will receive premium support which is very good.

I have previously used Google G Suite.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Azure Active Directory is more expensive than Google, but the capabilities they provide are superior.

I have evaluated SalePoint which is another very good product for collaboration that is available on the B2C platform.

The people who are considering Azure Active Directory should look at it as a whole because even if their company is using G Suite, they will still have to go to Office 365 for accounting and finance users who are very familiar with MS Excel and still want to use it. I see most of the companies that are using G Suite will have Office 365 for certain services. There is no need to have two services, a single Office 365 platform will provide all the capabilities needed.

I rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of ten.

We just use the solution for the authentication and the provision access control, among other tasks.

The access control aspect of the authentication is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The single sign-on is very convenient for us.

It would be ideal if the solution moved to a passwordless type of environment. It's the future of authentification. It's also more secure and convenient.

I've been using the solution for about a year.

The solution is quite stable. I haven't heard any bad things about it. It doesn't crash or freeze. I can't say that I've seen bugs or glitches. It seems to be very reliable so far.

I believe the solution is scalable, although I have not tried to scale it myself personally.

We have many people on the system, including doctors, nurses, practitioners, assistants, etc. It might be around 100 people, give or take.

I've never dealt with technical support for any reason. I wouldn't be able to evaluate their services or discuss their level of responsiveness.

I didn't handle any aspect of the implementation, as I'm not technical in any way. I wouldn't be able to specify if it was complex or straightforward or how the deployment went.

I don't have any insights into the licensing costs. I'm not a part of the accounting or payment process.

Our organizations has a few partnerships with Microsoft.

I don't know which version of the solution we're using. It's most likely the latest, due to the fact that it's a cloud deployment.

The only advice I have for other organizations considering the solution is this: just make sure that you have the right requirements. It's never a carbon copy. Every environment has different needs and requirements.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

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.

I use Azure Active Directory for user credential login, control my users with end-user policies, and apply my conditions.

Active Directory helps me all the time. When users want to log in, it shows me this information with a time and date. It also shows me which computer they are going to use. I can track my users at any time.

I like that you can run it on-premises. I also like that I can use Azure at any time as the main one.

ESAE management, especially the admin tools, could be improved. It should be built in by the vendor, and I shouldn't have to add patches or updates to connect to my domain directly. It should be added by default. The price could be better.

I have been dealing with this product for almost 20 years.

Azure Active Directory is a stable product. 

Azure Active Directory is a scalable product.

Customer service and support are perfect, especially when I'm dealing with my local third-party Microsoft vendor, who always supports me at any time.

Azure Active Directory is expensive.

I would recommend this solution to potential users.

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

The solution is a hybrid cloud with connectors into Azure/Microsoft 365 cloud.

I am still figuring out the whole on-prem/Azure Active Directory Premium/Microsoft 365 integrations and administrative connections.

The scalability of the solution is good.

Technical support can be helpful.

It's not intuitive and we use it mainly for our hybrid capability now and are expanding our footprint in Microsoft 365. The integration between on-prem and Online is interesting. However, the learning curve is high.

When you have an Office 365 enterprise subscription, it comes with Azure Active Directory, however, you don't have an Azure subscription. Yet, all of our active directory connectors put our credentials into the Azure Active Directory. 

There are enough things that aren't implemented on our side and we are in the middle of this transition.  I don't blame the product necessarily for that. However, there are links and items within Microsoft 365 that still point back to the .com side.

Items seem to continue to move, such as security and compliance. Now there's a security portal and a compliance portal, and all three are still being maintained, however, one's being phased in and the others are being phased out. Things continue to change. It's just been a bit to learn. There's a lot to keep track of. There should be a bit more transparency.

The Office 365 subscriptions are a bit confusing with a hybrid environment with what credential has an Microsoft 365 subscription.  However, then some of the documentation I was reading this week was where I ran into a wall. This particular document clearly showed that when you have a particular ability on the Azure side, and then you have another ability on the Office side, intuitively the Microsoft cloud knows to give you certain other rights, to be able to do stuff. This settings and configurations are in different places. Some things are then in the Exchange Online, some things are in the Intune section, etc.

I am not sure if the intent is to have an Microsoft 365 administrator with a second subscription for a cloud admin account or not.  I was trying to do something in Exchange online and received a message that I couldn't do it because I didn't have a mailbox. It's frustrating and confusing at times. There are things like that just are a different user experience between on-prem and online.

The Microsoft Premier Agreement we have has been very beneficial and we have had an excellent experience with a couple of different short cycle projects.

We've been working with the solution for just over a year and I have been involved for the last five months. It's been under a year, and not very long just yet.

The scalability seems to be there.  We are not a very big shop but we have unique needs and requirements.

The premier services we have are very good. We have a contact that's been with Microsoft a while and that's really saved us. The reach back into field engineers and their amazing ability to get the job done have been hugely beneficial.  The Exchange Online engineer we had was worth double what we paid for. It was amazing. If it weren't for that, I am not sure if we would have made our schedule.  Often the timing hasn't lined up, with short notice compliance requirements and implementation constraints due to configuration or version of technology.  They are very responsive, but depending on if it's break fix or planning, the planning side as longer cycles.   

I wasn't a part of the initial setup. I can't speak to how long the deployment took or how easy or difficult the process was.

We had assistance with the setup. We're actually bringing in some more help as our needs have short turn cycles and some ageing infrastructure that we still have to move online.

I would say to make sure you have a trusted integration partner or someone on staff that has been through this transition.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

While we use the on-premises model, we also have it synced for hybrid functionality.

With COVID especially, there have been a lot of changes in a lot of companies and a lot of rethinking of processes lately.

We're in the process of rolling out Office 356 internally. We've had really great feedback that people really like Teams, and we want to move more into that area. We had a roadmap meeting with Microsoft a few months ago. It was probably five months ago, four or five months ago.

Some of the more accessible types of items were on the roadmap for the first quarter of this year. However, Microsoft's working hard at listening to customers, especially through the COVID situation that changed a lot of work and priorities. The collaboration stuff has changed. They've been pushing a little bit more on getting some more integrations. We're not going to have that kind of clout where I am, however, where I used to work, we would have. We were the ones that were making sure the Exchange got upgraded and got to the developers.

I would rate the solution at a six out of ten. If the solution offered better transparency/clarity I might rate it higher.

We use Microsoft Authenticator as well as Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Normally, we enable MFA for all users who have email access and application access. Users can choose which authenticator they want to use. Based on their convenience, they enable Microsoft Authenticator or Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Almost 80% to 90% of users use Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Users who travel a lot choose Microsoft Authenticator. 

We are using the latest version. It is updated by default, and we don't have to update the application. It is also automatically updated on mobile.

It has been stable, and we haven't had any issues since we started to use it. 

Microsoft Authenticator is as easy as Google Authenticator, but it is not open to all types of applications. Google Authenticator is integrated with other third-party platforms and applications, whereas Microsoft Authenticator is not. It should have more integration with third-party platforms and applications.

I have been using this solution for the last two years.

It is stable.

We didn't have any issues or concerns. Therefore, we have never raised a ticket for Microsoft Authenticator.

The initial setup is very easy. You have to enable MFA on the portal for a user, and you have to put the user's phone number. The user can then log in with Azure ID. The user is redirected to the second level of code authenticator and receives an SMS on the mobile. The user needs to enter the OTP.

It comes free with the Microsoft account. We have a yearly agreement, and all products are covered under it.

We will keep using Microsoft Authenticator as a secondary solution. We prefer Microsoft SMS Authenticator over Microsoft Authenticator. 

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Microsoft Authenticator a nine out of ten.

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.

We primarily use the solution only for the employees. It offers a single sign-on to business applications. Internal modern applications also go through Azure Active Directory, however, we use Active Directory for the legacy ones. (Kerberos).

It takes a couple hours to add SSO to new business SaaS. The Azure AD Marketplace has all the applications we bought so far as built-in templates.

The single sign-on of the solution is the most valuable aspect.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution offers good bundles that include Office 365. 

The pricing is pretty decent.

The product is pretty user-friendly and offers good customization capabilities.

We find that most of the new features are in preview for too long. It gives you the announcement that there's a new feature and yet, most of the time, it takes more than one year to have it generally available. Often we have to go and sometimes just use a preview without support. 

We cannot run all the configurations from the APIs. I would like to have something that has code and to just be able to back up and apply my configuration. Right now, we are managing more Azure tenants. It's hard to keep all of those configurations at the same level, the same value.

We would like to have more granularity in the Azure conditional access in order to be able to manage more groups for applications. That way, when adding a new applications I don't have multiple conditional access to modify. 

One of the main requests from our security team is the MFA challenge. Azure, by default, is more user-friendly. We have a lot of debates with the security team here as the MFA doesn't pop up often enough for them. From an end-user perspective, it's a better user experience, as users generally prefer fewer pop-ups, however, security doesn't like it. It's hard for security to add. 

We don't have Azure Premium P2 yet, however, most of the advanced security features are in the P2, and it costs a lot more money.

I've been using the solution for four years at this point.

The solution is relatively stable. The only issue we have is that there's a lot of things on Azure that are synchronous. Sometimes it takes time for changes to apply, and it kind of depends on the time of the day. A lot of the time we're happy with it, however, sometimes it creates a bizarre issue that is difficult to troubleshoot.

The solution is quite stable. If an organization needs to expand it out, they can do so rather easily.

We have about 9,000 people in our organization using the solution.

While the technical support is good, you need premium support. The standard support is more for small enterprises. We have the premium support and with the premium support, it's much better. There's a direct line to the correct type of support. It's very good.

We previously used SiteMinder from Computer Associates. The main reason we migrated to Azure was for the integration with Office 365. It then became our primary authentication source for the employees.

The initial setup is not too complex. It's pretty straightforward.

We didn't need the assistance of an integrator, reseller or consultant for deployment. We were able to handle everything in-house.

The pricing is really great and Office 365 packages are good. We don't pay for it separately. It's included in our package and the APIs are really great. I'm not sure of the exact cost of Azure. It's a package deal.

We've looked into Okta for B2B and B2C clients, not necessarily for our internal employees.

We're just a customer.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I would recommend the solution for employees. It's a really great tool. However, we tried it also for consumers, for clients for B2B and B2C. For me, it isn't really a great production product. We researched Okta for that.

Overall, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.