Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

It's a very good solution.  You can manage your entity's enterprise identity using Azure Active Directory, and again, you can do several administrative activities. You can also use your Power Shares sorting and interfacing the endpoint.

It helps us with maintaining enterprise identities and integrating enterprise in those applications are some of the assignments.

We do have an expanded feature. We have captured video, so that other people can get their hands on getting used to it. That is, they can get used to the platform and implement it from the beginning.

We find the Integration accessory integration the most valuable feature. You can have your application integrated with an actual directory. You don't need to do much code, you can use interfaces and it's a direct integration. So, no need to worry about the requirements of your application.

The licensing cost is a bit prohibitive.

Less than one year.

I have not encountered any issues of stability with the product.

It scales as far as it depends on the contract. So, it is useful, with plenty of management capabilities. It is pretty flexible, scaling, you can scale in or out as per your requirements.

I have not contacted tech support.

It is a very straightforward implementation, and you pay as you go. It depends on your number of users, number of applications integrated, and how you prepare your topologies (the arrangements of the network). So, it is pretty much flexible. You can custom tailor it as per your business and target , business implementation and requirement. 

I have some prior experience with Oracle Unified Directory, as well. It is a less compliant directory service. 

In comparison, Azure Active Directory is mostly used with tighter integration. In most of the cases, enterprises are using Office 365 for the communication site online. If you have a requirement like integration with Office 365, then Azure Active Directory is a perfect solution. If you want to integrate other applications or workstations, you can use any compliant directory that works.

Microsoft Entra ID has made our organization more secure. 

The tool's most valuable feature is conditional access. 

The product needs to improve its support.

I have been working with the product for five years. 

Microsoft Entra ID is stable. 

The product needs to improve support. There are many steps before you get to someone who can solve the issues. 

Neutral

Microsoft Entra ID's deployment is easy. 

Microsoft Entra ID helps save money since you don't need a second MFA solution. I rate it a nine 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. 

I set up Azure Active Directory for many customers of the company I work for. I'm an implementer. It is the basis of identity and access for all the tenants we are using for our customers.

Microsoft Entra helps our clients save a lot of time, especially with the many automation processes that we can leverage to facilitate our work. The amount of time saved depends on the customer's needs. In general, on average I would estimate it saves them 40 percent in terms of time. But in some cases, it could be up to 70 percent.

It also helps them save money because they can work with fewer employees, or they don't have to hire more employees to do tasks that can be automated.

Another benefit is that it provides satisfaction at the administration level. On the user level, the ease of use makes it easy to understand without any limitations.

And it provides quite a good level of security for all users.

All the features of the solution are helpful. Among them, one of the most important is the Conditional Access. It helps affect a Zero Trust strategy positively.

Also, I use Entra Permission Management to distribute the roles among all users according to management requests. Microsoft provides reports for visibility and all kinds of controls where you can see the users and their access. Permission Management helps reduce the risk surface when it comes to identity permissions. It supports adaptive controls and that helps me in defining the right controls for users.

I would like them to improve the dashboard by presenting the raw data in a more visual way for the logs and events. That would help us understand the reports better.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for about three years.

It's stable. I haven't experienced any downtime or breakdowns with the product.

It's scalable.

I'm satisfied with their support. 

Neutral

It's easy to set up. 

The amount of time needed to set up Azure Active Directory depends on each customer's use case. It will take at least three to four hours for a small organization, and in that scenario you wouldn't need more than one person to set it up. For larger organizations, it may take a week and we would need two to three persons.

Our customers are looking for advanced features and processes for it to be cost-effective for their organizations. They see it as an overpriced product. They are enjoying using Azure Active Directory, but they are looking for better prices.

Just follow the book.

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.

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.

This product manages access for our compute space that includes Office 365, Salesforce, and other solutions.

The most valuable features are the B2B connector and the external identity connection functionality. These are helpful.

User group management works well.

The interface is well laid out and it is easy to navigate. You can get to things quickly and it works.

The portal allows you to create reports, which is a nice feature.

My only pain point in this solution is creating group membership for devices. This is something that could be improved. Essentially, I want to be able to create collection groups, or organizational units and include devices in there. I should be able to add them in the same way that we can add users.

We want to be able to create members as devices in groups, without having to leverage a dynamic group membership with queries. I want to be able to just pick machines, create a group, and add them.

We have been using Active Directory Premium for four years.

This is a stable product.

I have only used technical support on one occasion and I found it to be pretty good.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I have not used this product to its full extent but from what I have used, I find that it works well.

My advice for anybody who is implementing AD Premium is to understand what it is that they're going to use and how they're going to manage identity. I suggest doing a lot more in terms of identity governance.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.