Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

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.

It gives us security when integrating all the Active Directories of all our branches together, giving us a centralized database and authentication.

It has helped save time for our IT administrators. It's seamless for the users because they simply log into the stations, but it's affecting the response time and efficiency of the IT team.

Active Directory itself is the best feature it has. It also gives us a single pane of glass for managing user access.

I have been working with Azure Active Directory for almost a year.

So far, it has been a stable solution.

It is scalable.

We did not have a previous solution.

I am working right now on whether we have seen ROI from the solution.

We are always looking for better pricing. Our agreement is on a monthly basis.

We're planning to use conditional access to access controls, but we have not done so in the meantime.

The solution doesn't require much maintenance; we're talking about two or three people.

We primarily use this solution for tracking authentication.

The quantum we are using is probably the authentication The security-based factor of authentication.

The most valuable feature is the factor identification. I find that it is natural integration, and it is just a natural step. I do not need to do anything else.

I think there is room for improvement with actually discussing, and advertising Microsoft as a an authenticator. Many people just get confused and use Google. It's weird because it's exactly the same way that it works. But it's there, it's definite region to start the people is more used to use their the Google authenticator instead of the Microsoft authentication. I think if Microsoft would make more of an effort to penetrate the market, that would be key.

In addition, it would be nice to have a biometric authentication like voice ID, or any of your medical ID. This would be a nice additional feature for Azure to have.

We experienced the aset surge that happened a month or so ago. There was a storm that broke one of the data centers in south-central. The functionality of active directive for Microsoft support was in shortage.  It took a day to return back to functional use.

The solution is scalable for our needs.

I have not needed to request technical support. All of the Microsoft guides are really good and are very helpful.

I know more about Microsoft than any other technology, that's why I didn't look for any other competitors.

It was a very straightforward initial setup. To be honest, we are a pretty small company so for us it's one portal and everything is there. It's not that complicated.

I like it, I love it and it works fine.

We are using the solution primarily for demo purposes. We use active data cases from Microsoft. You can run different kinds of virtual machines and different kinds of services. We're currently using it in production.

It's very smooth and very easy to use. 

The performance is good. 

The product is stable.

It's quite scalable.

The initial setup is not complex.

We would like to see more system updates. They should happen more frequently.

I've used the solution for a while. 

The stability has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution can scale if you need it to.

About350 people use the solution in our organization.

Their support is not great when you are using cloud solutions, however, when you are using cloud solutions, it's very smooth and very effective. We haven't had any issues. 

I'm not sure if a different solution was used previously.

The installation was not complex. It was pretty simple and pretty straightforward.

The deployment is pretty fast. It takes ten minutes, at a maximum, to set up.

You only need one person for deployment and maintenance. 

I didn't need the help of any third-party integrator or consultant. I was able to handle it myself. 

The solution is pretty affordable. Sometimes you can get a Microsoft voucher to get some sort of discount.

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

Anyone who moves to Azure must have Azure Active Directory.

Azure Active Directory is identity management.

It's something we have to deal with every day. It is present. If you're in a domain environment, you'll need it to log in. If you work in a Microsoft-centric environment, you can't avoid it.

It's in the background and anyone who is a member of a Windows domain must have it.

Many people believe that the Azure Active Directory is overly complicated and antiquated.

Active Directory Windows hasn't evolved that much in over 20 years. Azure Active Directory, has a few nuanced elements. It's fairly straightforward.

I have been dealing with Azure Active Directory for well over 25 years.

Azure Active Directory is very stable.

Azure Active Directory is quite scalable.

When you've been dealing with a piece of technology for 25 years, it's simple, but the public perceives it to be complicated and antiquated.

Active Directory is a Windows component that requires a per-user license. If you're on Azure, it can be free or it's incorporated,  at no extra cost, or it can become extremely complicated.

If there is a cost, it is not expensive, but you have to have it if you are running an Active Directory environment. It's a have to have, not a nice to have.

We are partners with Microsoft.

I would rate Azure Active Directory an eight out of ten.

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. 

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.

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.