Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

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.

I use the product for user policy and group management. 

The tool's most valuable feature is auto logs. It helps with user activity and monitoring. It also assists us with GLBA policies and procedures. Microsoft Entra ID gives a 360 view of what the user has access to, what applications are available to them, when they are logging in and out, etc. It makes knowing what is happening to our tenants incredibly powerful. 

I want to be able to identify the audiences effectively and manage them. 

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate Microsoft Entra ID's scalability a ten out of ten. 

The tool's support is very responsive. 

Positive

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

Microsoft Entra ID's pricing is reasonable. 

Microsoft Entra ID is very transparent and easy to access. It is easy to understand, but you shouldn't get lost in the updates. 

The product has helped our IT administrators save time. We will be onboarding the HR team soon. 

My company is loyal to Microsoft products because of its consistency and flexibility. 

I rate the product a ten out of ten. 

We use the solution for single sign-on. 

The product is easy to use. 

Microsoft Entra ID should improve workload identities. It should set conditional access. 

I have been using the product for six years. 

My company has 5000 end users. I rate the product's scalability a nine out of ten. 

The tool's support is not good. However, the documentation is good. 

Negative

The tool's deployment is easy. 

We relied on two resources for deployment. 

I have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

The solution was fairly priced the last time I checked the costs. 

Microsoft Entra ID has helped us save money. It also helped us save 70 percent of the time. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use Azure AD for sign-on security as well as for our customers' Microsoft 365 solutions. We help migrate our customers from the traditional Active Directory, and to use Exchange Online and Microsoft Teams. We use Azure AD to secure their login processes with multi-factor authentication. In some specific cases, where there are specific applications, databases, or Active Directory login information about users, we integrate Azure AD with those elements.

Multi-factor authentication really secures our environments and gives us the flexibility to use location-based policies. Azure AD also gives us a lot of flexibility in our scope of integration.

It's easy to configure Microsoft products with Azure AD. It is almost an instant integration. In hybrid installations it is a bit more complex to configure, but not that much. In short, it is good for most Microsoft customers and the products they use.

Some of the features related to authentication could be made clearer. In my last organization, I tried to integrate a third-party education solution with Azure AD, but it was a bit difficult to configure. I would like it to be easier to integrate third-party applications.

I have been using Azure AD for three or four years.

It's a stable product. I haven't encountered any problems or bugs.

The solution is very scalable.

In general, there is no problem in configuring Azure AD. It's not hard. But, as I said, configuring third-party, open-source applications with it is a little bit difficult.

We usually set aside one day to configure Azure AD for new organizations. In general, it takes one person to maintain it, perhaps two in some cases.

We have faced a few little problems in our customers' hybrid environments. Backing up the ADFS (Active Directory Federation Services) is very important, but some of our customers didn't do so and they lost their ADFS proxy servers. That is one of the important lessons I have learned. In those cases we had to reconfigure almost everything. It's simple to back up ADFS, so I would advise doing so.

But from the user's point of view, we've faced no problems. It works well.

When we access the API, we use Microsoft Authenticator. Something with potential will be saved, and if the company has some use cases to connect to some database, I will use it as well, or something along those lines.

Normally, because a third party requires it.

It provides you with security. It provides the third party with some level of security.

But vendors like myself do not appreciate it.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that is easy to use.

It is also automated.

I believe it can also be integrated into other Microsoft products, as well as more integrations with other solutions.

I have been working with Microsoft Authenticator for two years.

I am working with the most recent version.

Microsoft Authenticator is quite stable.

I would rate the stability of Microsoft Authenticator a ten out of ten.

Microsoft Authenticator is a scalable solution. 

I would rate the scalability of Microsoft Authenticator an eight out of ten.

As far as I know, we have more than 30 users in our organization. Some are senior professionals and some are developers.

I have never dealt with technical support.

I use UiPath as well as Automation Anywhere.

I started with Authenticator and then moved on to the Namespace version or class that I can import from Microsoft.

I would rate the initial setup a ten out of ten.

It was easy.

It only took a few hours to deploy.

It's an out-of-the-box deployment, but I am not the one who manages it.

One person was involved in the deployment.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. It is easy to use and it fits its purpose.

Because it is scalable and reliable, I would rate Microsoft Authenticator an eight out of ten.

We are using Azure Active Directory in our company at a group level.

Azure Active Directory has been very useful for our company, it is not difficult to use.

Azure Active Directory could improve the two-factor authentication.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for approximately four years.

The stability of Azure Active Directory is good.

Azure Active Directory is scalable.

We have approximately 1,000 users using this solution. Not everyone is using Azure Active Directory but the ones involved in the cloud are.

I have not used technical support.

The initial setup was very easy for Azure Active Directory.

My advice to others is if they're going to move to the Azure Cloud Platform, this could be a highly valuable add-on, in order to take care of authentication matters in general. It's a very useful tool and not difficult to use.

I rate Azure Active Directory an eight out of ten.

I use Authenticator across my company for controlling access to our platforms and data.

The most valuable feature is the prompt for a number so that you're sure what you're seeing is what you're agreeing to.

It would be an improvement if Authenticator made it easier to recover the app if you reboot your cellphone and lose access.

Authenticator is stable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Don't delay implementing this solution, it's the best thing you can do for your identity protection. I would rate Authenticator as nine out of ten.

My main use is for directory services, including identity access, management policies, access control, authentication features, and endpoint management.

The licensing model makes it difficult to understand the real cost of the solution, especially because it changes all the time.  

I have fifteen years of experience with Active Directory.

The stability has improved from a couple of years ago. From time to time, there are service interruptions, but they're not a problem.

This solution is easily scalable.

The technical support can be confusing - if you're looking for something very specific, it can be hard to get the right answer or a solution. Google Workspace's support is stronger - it's fast and easy, and they go the extra mile without asking.

Active Directory is straightforward to set up.

Azure is the leading market solution because of its history, features, and maturity. I'd rate this solution seven out of ten.

The solution is being used at Kuwait University for different things, such as email systems.

Overall the solution functions very well, such as the ability to access it from the cloud.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for approximately eight years.

The stability of Azure Active Directory is good.

Azure Active Directory has been scalable.

If we have any problems we contact the local reseller, and if we need to contact Microsoft, we do it directly.

We were previously using Microsoft Active Directory which was not on the cloud. Having Azure Active Directory on the cloud is a benefit.

The initial setup is simple. There is not a need to do any installation or configuration, you only make a subscription and you run it.

There is a subscription model that is used for Azure Active Directory.

The subscription should be categorized by business size. For example, small companies should have a discounted price, this would help small companies and the organization to be automated.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate Azure Active Directory a ten out of ten.

I like Intune's MDM and MI.

I would like it if Intune could manage MacOS or iOS directly. Right now, we have to use a third-party solution. 

I've been working with Intune for four years

I think Intune is more stable compared to five years ago.

Intune's scalability is better now that it's on the cloud. We can deploy to all of our devices without performance suffering.  

Microsoft support is good.

My customers usually do a pilot project. Then it goes to the IT department after that. If they are happy with the features and functionality, then they will deploy it to the users. We typically have no problems, but sometimes we face issues with older devices.

I would like to see Microsoft offer discounts for larger Intune deployments.

I rate Intune nine out of 10. If the user is working with a Microsoft device or license, Intune is really powerful because it has a bundled license. Still, if we need to manage another system, Intune is too expensive. If the ecosystem is Microsoft, I recommend Intune because it's Microsoft's end-to-end solution.