Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We are using it for authentication. We are using GPOs for user and computer policies.

The central authentication server is most valuable. GPOs are useful for user and computer policies.

Its price should be improved. It is very expensive for Turkish people.

We have been using Azure Active Directory for about six months. This is a new company, and we started to use new IT solutions. We bought a lot of IT solutions, equipment, and tools. 

It is stable. 

At the end of the project, about 1,200 people will use this solution. We don't have any plans to increase its usage.

We didn't use Microsoft's support. We have mostly Turkish or local solution partners for any help. 

I didn't use any other solution.

It was not easy. It was also not difficult. It took about a month.

We used a solution partner for its deployment. For maintenance, we would have about 10 engineers for 1,200 people.

It is very expensive. Its price should be lower. Price is the most important factor for Turkish people. 

This is the best solution for authorization. I would rate it a nine out of 10.

The active directory on Microsoft Azure is similar to the corresponding system for an on-premise active directory.

I have no issues with Azure Active Directory.

Our users and clients are migrating from on-premises solutions to cloud-based solutions. As a result, they do not require on-premise service. 

What I like is that I can go anywhere, at any time, and to any client premise, and I can simply log in to the admin panel and can serve any of my clients.

Instead of using Team Viewer, you connect to their local service, which is centralized. I have got the Microsoft exchange, and have access to Microsoft Azure. I can check the workstations, and perhaps soon I will be using Microsoft Intune and the Microsoft Defender enterprise. Even if I am not on the premises, I will be able to check and secure my workstations.

I don't have any major problems. I don't use it in a way that requires a lot of resources.

The main issue is that because Active Directory is in the cloud, it will inevitably be dependent on internet connectivity.

It would be beneficial if Microsoft could make it lighter so that it requires fewer resources.

Better pricing will help us market it more than having it on-premises.

Azure Active Directory was implemented one year ago.

For the time being it has been stable. I have a small number of clients, and no hybrid system. We chose those clients with a maximum of twenty users. We don't want large clients so that we can implement one system in one location, and roll it out the same way to all of the clients.

In total, I have 10 clients, five of those are now users of Azure Active Directory.

By the end of the year, we hope to have all of our clients using Microsoft Azure.

New clients are immediately placed on Microsoft Azure.

The Microsoft team in Mauritius has been extremely helpful in implementing systems and resolving issues. We have small clients who have not been faced with many issues.

We deploy the M365 business premium services and a couple of months ago we started to implement 365 Defender. It is a cloud-based solution.

We're new to it. For the time being, we are only using the antivirus component. We haven't used Intune yet. We are not using the entire package. We are only now going to put such solutions into action.

Microsoft Azure was implemented a year ago, and is only used for the creation of users and emails, group emails, and shared boxes, but my clients are mostly lawyers. So, the primary uses are online email exchange and word processing.

We are trying to implement Microsoft Azure more and more.

Azure is the central point. Microsoft Azure is replacing my on-premises service.

The installation is rather straightforward.

We had some assistance from the local Microsoft team.

Licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis.

When I calculated the price, it appeared to be nearly the same as the on-premise server. 

Better pricing would attract customers to use the cloud.

We haven't had to deal with any major recovery issues.

We have had Excel and Word files that were simply recoverable. We backup the server, but nothing more serious than that.

We are Microsoft centric solution providers.

We have very small clients, companies with 20 to 30 users of Excel, Word, and the internet. We deploy Microsoft 365 platforms, not much in the way of large software applications.

I would recommend this solution to others, and I am already promoting it. 

I am suggesting that all of my clients migrate from on-premise active directory to a Microsoft view because, with the current COVID, many of our users work from home. I just wanted to point out that almost all of our users work from home. They are currently working on the roaster. Half of the company works from home, while the other half works on-site. Having active and SharePoint, is really assisting them in working from home.

I would rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of ten.

We use Office 365. We have different licenses because our users are using mail, mail strategies, Microsoft Teams, and the Office package. We use a lot of different services. We use Microsoft Intune, which is connected to Azure and other services like Conditional Access, which we also use. Microsoft Defender is another one, which is also connected to Azure.

The solution is deployed fully in the cloud through Microsoft Azure. We are using the latest version. The solution is on cloud, so we cannot control the version we're using. That is controlled by Microsoft.

We are satisfied with this solution because we use all of its features.

Reading documentation could be simplified. Technical support could also be faster.

We have used Azure Active Directory for several years.

We haven't had any problems with stability. Everything works fine.

We haven't had any issues with scalability.

We have approximately 500 users in our organization. We have plans to increase the number of people in our company and products because we're fully integrated with Microsoft and we will continue to use this solution and new ones.

We are an IT company, so the people who are using this solution are software developers.

I'm not satisfied with technical support. On a scale of 1 to 5, I would give it a 2.

Sometimes it is the first-line support, and it takes a lot of time to explain the problem. One problem can be discussed in one month. I even have some examples in the past where I created a request, my problem wasn't resolved, I found solution on the internet. It was faster than receiving a reply from Microsoft.

Previously, we used Active Directory on-premise. We also used different products from different vendors.

We switched to Microsoft because it is in the cloud and because of business continuity. For our company, it is better to use everything on the cloud than to keep it on-premise.

It's also better to go to the cloud because of security reasons.

On a scale of 1 to 5, I would rate the difficulty of setup as a 3. It's of medium difficulty.

With setup, sometimes there are difficulties with reading documentation because if you want to implement something, you have to go to Microsoft's instructions, and you will be redirected from one page to another. After reading about just one topic, you have to open 20 new tabs. Every time, you have to jump between instructions, from one instruction to another. I don't like this approach, personally. It should be done in one document, and the instructions could be a little bit simpler for the user.

We implemented Microsoft step-by-step, because first we only used the Office package. Then we started using the Intune solution. Later, we implemented Microsoft Defender, and continued working with Conditional Access. It is not like one setup, so it's a continuous process. It depends on organization scale and the needs from organization.

We deployed the solution ourselves.

The price is fine. It's a good value for the money compared with other solutions.

I cannot provide the exact numbers because we use a different type of licensing. For Azure, we have an Office 365 license. We also have a Microsoft Gold partnership and some products are included in one license.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

The product is really good, but it's up to each company to decide.

We primarily use the solution to take users into our AD. That's the basic purpose. We are using it in our whole organization so that our AD is synced.

Overall, the solution is quite good. 

There are a few additional functionalities that are very compatible. For example, device management is there and creating a custom role, which reduces the task of restricting the user from AD, if the person is on the on-premise AD. If they're using on-premise, they have to create a distribution list, then apply Azure to that. It's simplified in Azure AD, making it easy to create roles and assign them to the users. 

In fact, the device management and role assignments are great. These two features I found very compatible. For device management, if you are using an on-prem AD, you have to use some other software like Google admin to manage the devices. However, here, it is integrated into Azure AD. That's a positive aspect of the solution.

Regarding the role assignments, it's a very flexible way to restrict the user, or, if you want to customize access, that can be done as well.

The activity log, which is a way to see who made what changes, is quite useful.

Azure AD has features that helped improve our security posture. It is SSO - Single Sign-On. We can manage the users very easily and we can apply SSO and MFA to them. 

I'll give it a score of four out of five for the security posture on offer.

For whatever company I'm working for, we cannot fully put the data on the cloud due to compliance. Rather, you have to keep some data on-premises. That’s why it’s great that we can use the hybrid approach with Microsoft.

Azure AD  has not affected our end-user experience in any way. The transition is also quite smooth. If you're using an AD Connect to sync from your on-premises to your Azure AD, nothing has come up from the end-users in terms of issues or problems.

It has made our work easier in that it’s simplified everything for us. It has eliminated a few of the third-party tools, which we used to use. For example, we had a dependency on Google admin due to the fact that we could see where we could manage the devices of the user. That has been integrated directly to Azure AD.

The solution has not saved costs. While we’ve eliminated some tools, there are some other features that we are dependent on as admin, which is not yet integrated with Azure AD.

Other features have a broader scope and are covered under Azure. If, for example, I want to create a workflow, that cannot be done in Azure AD. That is something that is done in the Azure function or Azure logic app. Parts have to be covered in other functions. 

Longer-term, there are some features which might be added, such as admin features similar to Google admin. If I'm an employee and I'm exiting the company, for example, I need to transfer that data from myself to my manager. For that, maybe they could include a feature where they can transfer the data from the user directly and we don't have to rely on any admins.

I've been using Azure AD for one and a half years. Before, we were on-premises.

The stability is quite good. It has already been integrated with SSO or MFA. From a security perspective, it's quite stable. 

The scalability is pretty fair. Azure is doing quite good work in the cloud. It's one of the top clouds. Scalability is not an issue, for Azure AD at least.

We have approximately 800 users overall, between our India and Phoenix offices.

We have ten administrators working with this tool in your organization. They are mostly assistant admins. There are two people who are working as global administrators. They do all the configurations.

I haven't worked with Microsoft regarding this solution.

My past experience is limited to Azure AD. We also work with Azure Monitor and Azure Logic.

The initial setup is pretty much a straightforward process. I've set up another AD Connect and the process was done in 15 minutes. If you have proper documentation, you can go through it very, very smoothly. That's what my understanding is.

The solution doesn't require any maintenance. 

We've definitely seen an ROI. I can't speak to the pricing part, however, when I see it as an administrator, I definitely see the value for money for our organization. A lot of functionalities have been added, with still more plans to add a few more features. There clearly has been a value addition.

I don't have any insight on the pricing end as that is always managed by our team leader. They take care of all the pricing activities, et cetera. Any pricing-related information I don't have knowledge of. 

In terms of deployment, we are on a hybrid structure, where we are using an AD Connect to sync our on-prem users to Azure.

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

A lot of functions have been included as compared to the on-premises deployment. Compared with competitors such as AWS and Google Cloud, it is in a different league. For example, AWS also has good features, however, this is more simplified and it's a Microsoft product, so you can rely on it for the long term. 

We use this and Microsoft Intune. Azure Active Directory is an identity solution and a mandatory requirement. Without Azure Active Directory, Intune would not work.

Within Azure Active Directory, the single sign-on feature is the best aspect. Right now, the world is moving to the cloud. Nowadays, every vendor is developing their cloud. With this, I can have a single sign-on and move around from place to place easily.

The technical support is pretty good.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

I have found the solution to be stable so far.

The scalability potential is good. 

The pricing of the product is reasonable. 

The interface, in general, looks okay. 

The solution has built-in backup capabilities. 

So far, the solution has worked well for us. there are no missing features. 

The monitoring dashboard could be a bit better.

The solution is stable. the performance and reliability are good. There aren't issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

You can scale this solution if you need to. It's not a problem. 

We haven't dealt much with technical support, as we haven't really needed it, however, if we did need assistance, they have been helpful. Overall, it's been a positive experience. 

The initial setup is very, very easy. It's not complex or difficult at all.

There are multiple options for pricing. One is standalone. Another is within a package. If we consider an F1 package, I'm getting Azure Active Directory, Intune, and Microsoft Information Protection. If I'm taking the Azure Active Directory virtual feature under the plan, under the package, it's affordable. They offer a very good price.

I would rate the solution at a perfect ten out of ten overall. It's the best product. I'm really happy with it. 

There were a couple of use cases I've dealt with. In one scenario, I had to import on-premise users to my Azure AD. We had a couple of mobile applications where we were using the authentication feature from Azure AD. 

We needed to create a new infrastructure for one of the clients and everything had to be taken care of by the Azure infrastructure. In that case, we used Azure AD for all kinds of user management tasks, as well as authentication.

We simply use Azure AD and everything is taken care of instantly. You need not worry about user management. Everything is taken care of by Azure AD itself. You just simply have it in your application and everything is done out-of-the-box.

Azure AD, overall, is quite good for securing your applications as well as the infrastructure. 

I like that they provide most of the authentication flows out-of-the-box, so you do not need to do anything specific to tackle any authentication flows.

Azure AD has affected our organization's security positively. In terms of the application, it's quite good. There was very minimal leakage. We had a single instance and that user was already compromised. Otherwise, it's quite good.

Azure AD provides two types of features. One is Azure AD Excel and is already B2C. Out of both versions, Azure B2C requires some improvement, in terms of user management and role management, et cetera.

I've used the solution for approximately one to one-and-a-half years.

The stability is quite high - if we are talking about Azure AD and not Azure AD B2C.

The scalability capabilities are quite high. We have somewhere around 5 million users, and it was doing quite well even with that number.

I haven't interacted much with technical support, however, during one of the instances where we required some help, which was not related to the Azure AD, they provided us quite good support.

I have tried one competitor, IdentityServer. It is basically an open-source solution. In terms of comparison, Azure AD is quite solid. When it comes to IdentityServer, you need to manage everything on your own. You need to host everything and you have to take care of the whole application life cycle with that identity cycle. In the case of Azure AD it's an almost managed service.

I found the initial setup process quite straightforward.

In terms of implementation, Microsoft provides very good documentation of how to kick off Azure AD. You just need to follow those instructions and it will be done in a couple of clicks.

They do have a tier of service that is free that supports many people. You can also purchase a license and costs can be reduced on the Microsoft side.

My previous organization has a very close relationship with Microsoft.

I would advise users to go with Azure AD, if possible, and to try to avoid the B2C version at the moment, as quite a few good features are already in the preview. Once those preview features are done, you can go with the B2C version. 

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

Containerization is mainly what I've been dealing with lately. I've been trying to provide solutions with Active Directory and cloud resolutions so that Edge services can communicate properly to the main data centers.

We use Active Directory for global authentication.

The advantage of Azure Active Directory is that it's a cloud environment, so just about anybody can get to it. As long as you can get to the cloud, you can get to the internet. You can authenticate offshore resources to client services, which is what my present company does. That kind of authentication is much more advantageous as an Active Directory solution.

If you want to replicate a website at the frontend in Azure, it's very easy to do it globally.

As soon as you authenticate to the web storage, where you hit the frontend, then you can redirect to whatever resources locally that are duplicated.

It doesn't function the same way as Active Directory inside of a physical infrastructure. Even VMware Active Directory doesn't function the same way in the cloud. Cloud is all flat. That's one of the disadvantages. You can authenticate through Active Directory through Federated Services, but it's mainly like an IIS web frontend and bulk storage.

It's all record based.

I've dealt with Azure Active Directory for about three years.

It is a cloud solution.

Stability-wise, it is much more secure and stable than AWS. Oddly enough, a lot of people think that AWS has many more regions and sites. It's actually not true. Azure has far more. There's a good reason why the government jumped right on Azure and uses it for their internal resources.

It is very scalable.

Microsoft technical support is very responsive. If you buy the enterprise package, then when you call them, they will jump right in and help you out.

When one of our clients had a ransomware outbreak, Microsoft helped them solve quite a lot and helped them get up and running.

The initial setup is very straightforward. Microsoft is very good about helping you get things set up, and they're very responsive.

We evaluated AWS AD. AWS support will provide bits and pieces, but Microsoft will jump in and help out. Of course, you have to pay the price for the corporate support, but who wouldn't want that, especially when your whole environment is a Microsoft environment.

It works really well, and I would rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten. You need good training, and Microsoft will provide that for free as part of their package.

Azure Active Directory is an identity and access management service.

With Azure Active Directory we were able to manage with different options the access for different users.

I have been using Azure Active Directory within the past 16 months.

The solution is stable.

The solution was difficult to scale because the group's configuration was complex.

I would rate the scalability level of Azure Active Directory a five out of ten.

We have not needed to contact support.

The implementation was easy and took approximately three hours.

We used three people to do the implementation of the solution and our analyst was in charge of the maintenance. 

The price of the solution was reasonable.

I rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of ten.

We had five people using the solution in my organization.