Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We are a small consultant company, and we help customers to build hybrid environments. We synchronize on-premises AD to Azure AD and help our customers decide which one they want to use.

In our own company, we use Office 365, so we use Activity Directory directly for authentication and authorization.

The most valuable feature is Conditional Access. As there are more and more people working from home, security is a challenge for a lot of companies. To build a general trust solution, we need Conditional Access to make sure the right people use the right device and access the right content.

In our company, we use Conditional Access with Trend to make sure that our employees can use the device from the company. We can make sure that there is higher security. We can also use Trend to set up a group policy and to set up Windows Defender as well.

Microsoft Azure AD is easy to install and is a stable solution.

There is no documentation about how Microsoft will scale Azure AD for customers. It only mentions that it will scale out if you have a lot of requests but does not mention how in detail.

More documentation on some complete scenarios, such as best practices to integrate forests into Azure AD when a customer has several on-premises forests, would be helpful.

I've been using it for four years.

In my experience, it has been working fine.

Scalability is a pain point. There is no documentation about how Microsoft will scale Azure AD for customers. We do, however, plan to increase usage.

We used on-premises Active Directory before using Azure Active Directory.

The initial setup is pretty simple. Microsoft Azure AD can be deployed in one or two minutes.

If you have an Office 365 subscription, Microsoft will build Azure AD for you.

Microsoft Azure AD has P1 or P2 licensing options, and it depends on the customer's needs. To use Conditional Access, you need to have the P1 license, and to use the PIN features, you need the P2 license. We use the P1 license as we use Conditional Access.

It will be a very good solution if your company is already using on-premises Windows Active Directory. Microsoft has provided a useful tool called Azure AD Connect. So, you can easily sync your on-premises Active Directory to Azure Active Directory, and you can easily implement the SSO.

Overall, we are satisfied with the solution and the features provided, and on a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution at nine.

Our use case for Azure AD is principally to do the role-based access management for our resources. So, we essentially use it for authentication operations for our primary groups and users to secure access to resources.

It has helped in improving our security posture. It is modeled around that. It is an AD, which means it is a directory of users, objects, and resources, and there is a lot of security in terms of the access model and in terms of who is accessing those resources.

In terms of user experience, it is pretty seamless for any user to use Azure Active Directory. The way its security model works is that once you sign in to Azure Active Directory, you get access to a lot of applications and systems that have Single Sign-on enabled. So, Azure Active Directory works seamlessly as an identity provider for many applications such as Slack, GitHub, etc. That's one of the best parts of it. If it is used properly, only by using the Azure Active Directory sign-in, a person can access different resources, which really improves the user experience.

We've benefited from all the security or AD features of this solution. Azure Active Directory is the only directory we've been using, and we make use of pretty much all the features, including the user identity protection features such as MFA. The way it allows us to audit who is logging in and do our work in a secure manner is one of the best features of it.

Azure Active Directory provides access to resources in a very secure manner. We can detect which user is logging in to access resources on the cloud. It gives us a comprehensive audit trace in terms of from where a user signed in and whether a sign-in is a risky sign-in or a normal sign-in. So, there is a lot of security around the access to resources, which helps us in realizing that a particular sign-in is not a normal sign-in. If a sign-in is not normal, Azure Active Directory automatically blocks it for us and sends us an email, and unless we allow that user, he or she won't be able to log in. So, the User Identity Protection feature is the most liked feature for me in Azure Active Directory.

Generally, everything works pretty well, but sometimes, Azure Active Directory has outages on the Microsoft side of things. These outages really have a very big impact on the users, applications, and everything else because they are closely tied to the Azure AD ecosystem. So, whenever there is an outage, it is really difficult because all things start failing. This happens very rarely, but when it happens, there is a big impact.

I've been working as a DevOps engineer for the last four years, and I have been using Azure Active Directory during this time. I got to know it really well over the last two years in my current job and as a part of my Azure Security certification, where I get to know how to secure everything in the cloud by using Azure Active Directory.

It is available most of the time. Only once in the last six months, we faced an issue. So, it is very reliable.

It is managed by Microsoft, so it is not something that is in our hands. We don't manage the infrastructure side and the scalability side.

My present organization is a startup with around a hundred people. There are 5 to 10 people who primarily work in the CloudOps and DevOps space, and we work with Azure Active Directory at some point in time. All people who have resources in Azure, such as the cloud administrators and people from the CloudOps team and the DevOps team, work with Azure AD.

In terms of resources, there are around 100 to 150 resources that we manage within it.

Microsoft has extensive documentation on its website about how to set up things in Azure AD. There are also video tutorials. So, typically, we don't need to engage technical support to do anything.

Only when there is an outage or something like that, we had to engage someone from Microsoft. For example, when there was an outage, we didn't know what was happening. There were some strange behaviors in certain applications, and that's when we involved Microsoft's technical support. 

They are very reliable, and they are very fast to respond. The response time also depends on the support plan that an organization has with Microsoft. 

I haven't used any other Identity Provider solution.

Our organization has definitely seen a return on its investment from using Azure Active Directory. It ties really well with the Azure ecosystem, which is why it makes sense to use Azure Active Directory to access resources.

Azure Active Directory has a very extensive licensing model. Most of the features are available in the free and basic version, and then there are premium P1 and P2 editions. The licensing model is based on how many users you have per month. In Australia, for a P1 license, the cost is 8 dollars.

With P1 and P2 licenses, you get a lot of goodies around the security side of things. For example, User Identity Protection is available only in P2. These are extra features that allow you to have a pretty good security posture, but most of the required things are available in the free and basic version.

I would definitely recommend this solution. I have been using it extensively, and it works really well. It is one of the best Identity Provider solutions out there. You have all the guidance from Microsoft to set things up, and if there is an issue, their technical support is highly available. 

It has been around for a while now, and most organizations leverage Active Directory as their on-premises identity provider. This is just Azure managing your Active Directory for you. It is pretty popular and rock-solid.

I haven't used any other Identity Provider solution, which makes it hard for me to compare it with others. Based on my experience and the things that I have done and learned over time, I would rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of 10. 

My organization uses Microsoft Entra ID for some people who access Azure, especially for people who need Azure for different things. My organization deals with people transitioning from a standard data center environment into a cloud-based one to meet their needs. My organization has certain conditional access to certain people because we have access to government and cloud services or a commercial environment, along with different versions of each of those across different groups. I would say that most of our organization's work is just giving conditional access to people and occasionally vendors, but nothing too absurd.

I don't want to say that the product hasn't improved anything for my organization. The problem with the solution stems more or less from the fact that technology is moving ahead, and my organization needs to try to keep up with the changes, which makes it a new way of doing things that will be applicable to the future. Maybe if we could transition to certain things faster, I would have seen the product's full benefits. Since the areas of transitions related to the solution are slow, I haven't experienced the full depth of what I can do with the product.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to delegate roles to each individual resource, which is great. I think the aforementioned feature is better done in the solution itself than with an actual local AD.

I wish transitioning from Microsoft Active Directory to Microsoft Entra ID was a little easier, and I didn't have to learn so many new concepts. I faced difficulties from Micorosft's end and during the transition from Microsoft Active Directory to Microsoft Entra ID. Sometimes, some of Microsoft's documentation could be a little outdated. The product doesn't meet the organization's niche requirements, especially in our environment. Microsoft Entra ID is not a very standard product.

When I think about the trade-off I have had to go for to get the aforementioned feature, it does annoy me. For me, I can't mirror accounts with the solution. I need to consider that we have so many groups and subscriptions, and I can't just see a blanket of their different individual roles in every single resource if I create an account for someone who takes over a job in the organization. In the solution, some people might have specific roles in one resource, which might be the only thing in there. With Microsoft Entra ID, I can't view every instance, and I have to go one by one subscription all the way down, which is a huge pain when you have 400 to 500 subscriptions. The aforementioned aspects can be considered for the improvement of the solution.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for the last five years, but not at its full capacity because, in our organization, we have to ensure that we help with the migration process of different governmental agencies piece by piece since we are a multi-cloud, multi-tenant, multi-forested environment. My organization is a customer of the product.

When it comes to the technical support for the product, I have a representative who works for me, making the support good since I can have him put under fire. I have had some issues with the tool. The IT security audits that come under Microsoft Services Hub are something we needed in Microsoft Gov cloud, and there's only a certain region of Microsoft Gov cloud that supports it, meaning you cannot use Microsoft Services Hub on it, which is all fine as you just have to run it either for by line or you have to run it from within Azure's portal. I had three separate calls with Microsoft's technical support about it, and it was the third tech person who told me after looking at the ticket raised by my organization with the support that the support team had not even finished adding our ticket to their list, which to me was like an organizational issue. Apart from the aforementioned issue I faced with the support team, I feel everything else has been fine. I wouldn't go around saying that Microsoft offers bad technical support.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

As the product already existed before I joined my current organization, I was not involved in its deployment phase. I have some past experience with the deployment processes of Microsoft Entra ID and Microsoft Active Directory. The deployment process of Microsoft Entra ID was easy, and it is not anything different or terrible.

The time for deployment of the tool depends on the client or the project my organization deals with, and a lot of the clients I have worked for are pretty small teams. I haven't had to do too much in terms of deployment.

My organization hasn't considered switching to a different product, but I know that we have some AWS environments with IAM solutions.

It is easy to use the solution's offering of a single pane of glass for managing user access if you have experience with Azure for a while. During the transitioning period, the depth that revolves around the concepts of blades in Azure can be annoying, especially while attempting to relearn the new places where everything is stored. It feels like Microsoft invented a new language for their new system, but a lot of it is just like an updated version of what it was. I have many people at work who have never heard of Microsoft Entra ID and claim to use Microsoft Active Directory without realizing they are the same. Microsoft Entra ID is just a new version of Microsoft Active Directory.

As a product that offers a single pane of glass, it works great and offers consistency to our organization's security policies if I consider the little or limited Azure we have.

My organization hasn't implemented the tool over 900 other devices yet, so I don't know how it will work after that.

Microsoft Entra Verified ID is good when it comes to privacy and control of identity data. Regarding Microsoft Entra ID, my organization sees a lot of contractors and vendors that come in, which gives us confidence or at least ways to sell it to politicians who have confidence that we can do something.

My organization uses Microsoft Entra Permissions Management, but we are not too in-depth into it. I feel Microsoft Entra Permissions Management is nice. I believe that Microsoft Entra Permissions Management helps reduce risk surface. I don't like one of the top-level tenants in the product. As the product goes down into different resources or subscriptions, I see that agencies own them. Sometimes, I feel my organization's offerings look good, but when I dig into the offerings of other agencies, I realize that we are not good.

The time-saving capabilities of the solution experienced by IT administrators or the HR department in my organization have been more or less the same.

I haven't seen the budget in a way that can help me figure out if using the solution in my organization has helped save money.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use Azure AD to implement conditional access when using Microsoft Network (MSN) services. Our infrastructure is primarily on-prem, and we operate our email in a hybrid environment and use the solution for continuity between our on-prem and cloud landscapes.

The solution improved our organization, especially in terms of security control. Overall, we're 65-70% satisfied with the product.

The most valuable feature is Conditional Access, and we use it extensively.

Azure AD provides a single pane of glass for managing user access; we integrated multiple APIs and use single sign-on for all of our Microsoft products. I can't speak in universal terms, but we had some positive feedback from our users regarding user experience.  

We use the Conditional Access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls, an excellent feature we use to enhance the security of all the machines connected to our domain. Users cannot access long-term data, data from untrusted devices, or data on connected personal devices.  

We use Azure AD Verified ID, which is a good feature for privacy and control of identity data; it offers a good level of secrecy. 

We've been using the solution for over six years now. 

The product is stable. 

The scalability isn't an issue; it depends on our license.

We previously used Microsoft's technical support, which was excellent; they were very responsive. Now, we use a CSP, and their support is lacking, so I rate them five out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward, and a partner was present to assist us during the implementation. We have around 250 users, and the solution doesn't require any maintenance.

The product's price is in the midrange. 

I rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Azure AD helped to save some time for our IT admins but not for our HR department, as they don't currently have access to the tool.

I recommend the product to those considering it, though it depends on the use case and requirements. If Azure AD has featured you don't need, then going with one of the cheaper competitors could be a better option.   

My primary use case is Azure SSO. Then, it is a hybrid synchronization of users and computers, and also for SCIM provisioning.

Using this product has helped improve our security posture. I don't handle security directly, but I know that our security team was able to identify logs containing erratic behavior, such as logins that were not authentic. They were able to identify and solve those problems.

This solution has improved our end-user experience a lot because previously, users had to remember different passwords for different applications. Sometimes, the integration with on-premises AD was a little bit difficult over the firewall. However, with Azure, that integration has become seamless. The users are also happy with the additional security afforded by multifactor authentication.

One of the benefits that we get from this solution is the Azure hybrid join, where my presence of the domains is both on-premises and on the cloud. It has allowed us to manage the client machines from the cloud, as well as from the on-premises solution. We are currently building upon our cloud usage so that we can manage more from the Azure instance directly.

Our cloud presence is growing because most people are working from home, so the management of end-users and workstations is becoming a little challenging with the current on-premises system. Having cloud-based management helps us to manage end-users and workstations better. This is because, with an on-premises solution, you need a VPN connection to manage it. Not all users have a VPN but for a cloud-based solution, you just need the internet and almost everyone now has an internet connection.

The most valuable feature is the single sign-on, which allows any application that is SAML or OAuth compatible to use Azure as an identity provider for seamless sign-in.

I like the SCIM provisioning, where Azure is the single database and it can push to Google cloud, as well as Oracle cloud. This means that the user directory is synchronized across platforms, so if I am managing Azure AD then my other platforms are also managed.

In a hybrid deployment, when we update the UPN or email address of a user who has license assigned, it does not get updated automatically during normal sync. This means that we have to update it manually from Azure, which is something that needs to be corrected. Essentially, if it's a hybrid sync then it should happen automatically and we shouldn't have to do anything manually.

Azure AD DS allows only one instance in a particular tenant, which is something that could be improved. There are people that want to have AD DS on a per-subscription basis.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for more than three years.

Other than a few global outages, I have not seen any specific outages to the tenant that we use. In the typical case, we haven't faced any issues.

The scalability has been good. For the infrastructure that we have developed, there were no issues. We have nothing in terms of abnormal outages or any abnormal spikes that we have observed. Overall, scalability-wise, we are happy with it.

We have thousands of users on the Azure platform. The entire organization is on Azure AD, and everyone has a different, specific role assigned to them. Some people are using the database, whereas somebody else is using other infrastructure service, and the same is true for all of the different features. We have different teams using different features and I am part of managing identities, which involves using Azure AD and its associated features.

The support from Microsoft is very good. I would rate them a nine out of ten. They are responsive and very knowledgeable.

Prior to Azure AD, we used on-premises Active Directory.

The initial setup was not very complicated because there are very good articles online, published by Microsoft. They give detailed steps on the process and including what challenges you may face. In our setup, the articles online were sufficient but suppose you run into any issues, you simply reach out to Microsoft for support.

Taking the purchases, planning, and everything else into account, it took between three and four months to complete the deployment.

Our in-house team was responsible for deployment. In a few cases, we reached out to Microsoft for support.

We have not evaluated other options. The reason is that the integration between Azure AD and on-premises Active Directory is seamless and easy. Both solutions are by Microsoft.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Azure AD is to consider the size of their environment. If it's a large on-premises environment then you should consider a hybrid model, but if it's a small environment then it's easy to move to the Azure cloud model directly. If it's a small environment then Azure AD is also available on a free license. This is how I would suggest you start looking at having a cloud presence.

Azure AD is easy to integrate and manage, and it will reduce your capital cost a lot.

In summary, this is a good product but there is always scope for improvement.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to authenticate to the portal. There are also some VMs that are not domain-joined, so we use Azure users that we create natively in the portal.

We also use it for our applications. The accounts that we create natively in Azure are used for application authentication.

We have a hybrid deployment model where some accounts are primarily native in Azure, whereas others are on-premises. We also have accounts that are synchronized between our on-premises servers and Azure.

Azure AD has features that have helped to improve our security posture. We have a service called Azure AD Privileged Identity Management, where instead of our administrators having permanent access or permanent admin assignment, they can now activate admin roles only when they need to perform administrative-level tasks.

This means that instead of using permanent assignments, our administrators activate the specific roles that they need at the moment that they need them. After the task is complete, the administrative access expires. This has definitely improved our security posture.

Using this product has also had a positive effect on our end-user experience. The self-service password reset is something that has definitely improved our end-user experience. Instead of having to call our service desk, users can now reset their own passwords.

This is important because due to our multi-factor authentication, we no longer have policies where we have to have periodic password changes. We have three and four-factor stages of authentication, which makes our logins more secure. This is why users don't have to change or reset their passwords on a regular basis.

One of the ways that Azure AD has improved the way our organization functions is to help cut down on service desk requests. If I have an issue with my password, in the past, I would have had to log a ticket with the service desk. With most of us working remotely, this would've posed a challenge. It would have required the service desk to verify that I am who I say I am, for example. Now, because users set up their own profiles and are able to change passwords for themselves, at any moment that their account is compromised, they're able to change their own password.

Overall, this solution has definitely improved our organization's security posture. We no longer have permanent administrative permission assignments, and we are also able to restrict who is able to log in to certain applications. Finally, we are able to see and review any risky or suspicious sign-ins.

Specifically, in the infrastructure team, we now have managed identities. Instead of having to create service accounts, we have managed identities that are directly linked to our resources that support them. All of that is managed by Azure Active Directory.

Another way that this solution has improved how we do our work is that we no longer have to keep a record of all service accounts or use one service account for multiple services. Now, each service that supports managed identities can have its own service account, and that is managed by Azure AD.

The most valuable feature is the conditional access policies. This gives us the ability to restrict who can access which applications or the portal in specific ways. We are able to define access based on job roles. For example, I'm primarily in the infrastructure team and only certain people should be able to connect to the Resource Manager. We can also define which IP addresses or locations those people can connect from before they can access the portal.

If your organization requires additional security then the subscription will be more expensive.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for approximately five years, since 2016.

In terms of stability, Azure Active Directory is definitely an improvement from what we used in the past. I'm happy so far with the offerings and we hardly ever have any service disruptions.

We have a lot of different people using this solution. We have normal users and we have administrators. It's a large organization.

So far, I've been happy with the technical support.

There are very few service disruptions and also, because of our agreement with Microsoft, we are able to get escalated support.

We hardly ever have any downtime. When we do need support, it's normally escalated and our service is restored in a reasonable timeframe.

I would rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Prior to this solution, we used the on-premises version of Active Directory.

The switch was part of our cloud migration strategy. For us to be able to use our apps and workloads in the cloud, we had to have Identity Management as part of our migration scope. It's linked to our cloud migration strategy.

I was not involved with the initial setup but I assume that it was not complex because we have Microsoft consultants assisting us.

We specifically work with Microsoft directly. We don't use a reseller or service provider. All of the assistance that we get is directly from the vendor.

Our technical team is responsible for deployment and maintenance. I'm not sure how many people are in that team. Somebody from security is involved, but I'm not sure what other roles are required for maintenance tasks.

We have definitenly seen a return on investment from using this product. We have seamless authentication, quicker response times, more robust security, access from anywhere without having to set up VPN links, and federated models.

If we had similar services on-premises, I assume that it would be expensive, especially given that we used to have a perpetual licensing model. Now that we are able to have a subscription-based service, it has not only improved our security posture but also cut down on costs.

My advice concerning the pricing and licensing would vary depending upon the stage of maturity of the organization. I've been with companies that are using the Office 365 license for Active Directory, whereas others are able to use the free version of it.

For organizations such as the one that I'm at now, where we require more security and have services like the Conditional Access Policies or Privileged Identity management, you have to upgrade to a higher level of the solution.

I'm not sure about the specific costs or how they're calculated, but essentially, the costs go up based on the level of security that is required by the organization.

I can't say for certain what our future plans are for Azure AD but I see it being used long-term. It has helped our organization to grow because of what we are able to do. Also, it has greatly improved our security posture because of the services that are available.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are using it for all non-structured data and as an identity manager for all of our accounts. In addition, we use it also to authenticate Google services, because we have Google Workspace for email, and to integrate other tools with our services. We are able to keep it all going, balanced, and synchronized. It's very good. We use it for just about everything that we need to do an identity check on.

We couldn't live without the Active Directory services. It has helped to improve our security posture. We have a lot of users and hardware to manage and we can do that with Active Directory.

The most valuable feature is the ability to deploy and make changes to every workstation that I need to. We use it to control policy and I can apply the right policies to all our 1,500 workstations, notebooks, et cetera.

I have been using the Active Directory solution for three years. I'm responsible for almost all infrastructure services in our organization.

It's pretty stable. In the three years, the service has never been down.

As far as I know, it works for 10,000 and 100,000. It's just difficult to find current information, such as how much hardware and how many licenses we would need to keep it going. But it's scalable and works really well. We can keep adding servers and scale up or out.

We don't have another company that provides support for Active Directory. On my team, there are three people who work with it, and we have about 2,000 users in our company.

To be honest, I can barely navigate Microsoft's support. Microsoft is so well-known and there is so much information to look up on the internet, that we have never come to the point where we have actually had to open an issue with Microsoft's team. We can almost always find out the information that we need by looking it up with Google or in Microsoft's Knowledge Base.

We used to use LDAP, a free tool, but since almost all of our hardware needed integration, we had to move to Active Directory. We couldn't apply the policies that we needed, using open source, and we couldn't keep the integration going the way we needed to.

We are really happy with how the functionality Azure Active Directory gives us. I have a security policy applied to all workstations. Before, all of our users could configure their machines the way they wanted to. As a result, we often had to reconfigure and do other things to them as well because the computers were crashing. We almost don't have to do that anymore.

The trick was to immigrate from LDAP. We had to get all the properties from the files into Active Directory, so it took some time. When we did that, there were some issues with the system and we had to do it manually. It would be nice if they had a service that would make it easier to migrate from LDAP to Active Directory, keeping all of the properties from files and non-structured data as well.

It gives a good return on investment. The amount of first-level support we have had to give internally has dropped a lot since we applied the policies and restricted our users. But our users are now more satisfied because their computers don't have the issues that they had before. Before Active Directory, there were many issues that our users complained about, like worms and malware. We don't have those issues anymore. Even with endpoint protection we had some cases of viruses in our company, but now we don't have them either.

Directly, I couldn't calculate the return on investment, but indirectly we saved by reducing work for our team, and we are keeping our users satisfied.

The process for buying licenses from Microsoft is somewhat messy and really hard to do. We have to talk to someone because it's hard to find out how many licenses we need. If I'm applying for 2,000 users, how many Windows licenses do we need?

They could also charge less for support. You buy the license, but if you want to keep it in good standing, you have to pay for the support, and it is expensive. It's okay to pay for the license itself, but to pay so much for support...

We were thinking about buying another tool, to be capable of managing and keeping all the identities within our organization current. But we had to go straight to Microsoft because there are no other solutions that I know of. By now, almost all organizations are using Windows 10 or 11, and it would be hard to achieve the possibilities that we have with Active Directory if we used another service.

We are integrated with NetApp because we use NetApp storage. It's pretty awesome. We are also integrated with many others, such as our data center hardware with storage from IBM. We're using it for logging switches, as well. It works really well.

My advice to others would be to look at the options and focus on how you can pay less. Do the research so that you buy just the essential licenses to keep it going. If you don't do the sizing well, you can buy more, but it's expensive to keep it going and pay for support.

I was a consultant. I recently changed my job (seven days ago). Most of my customers did everything in Azure. They used Azure Active Directory Domain Services (AD DS) as well as Active Directory Federation Services (ADFS) to sync a user's profile using AD Connect and a federated model. So, they could access an application on-premises as well as in a cloud. 

I am now a CTO for a big hospital. I manage Azure AD for all hospitals as the CTO. They also use Office 365 across all four of their hospitals. 

The solution is hybrid cloud. We have the Active Directory on-premises and Active Directory Domain services in Azure. This is where I use AD Connect (or sync server) to sync the user's profile.

Azure AD has features that have helped improve security posture. From a security point of view, they integrated with Okta, which is one of the integrations that we used for a customer's use case. From there, their entire security posture is managed and integrated with Azure.

It gave better visibility on our customers' security posture - the way that they configure users, configure their end user computing, and multi-factor authentication. This is where they get better visibility and manageability through this particular solution.

A use case that we did for an end user in a manufacturing organization: We used WVD with biometric authentication because 1,500 processes need to happen in a process. The user didn't want to use a login using their credentials. They wanted to use fingerprinting or tap their ID. That is where we integrated with the authentication. Now, they can process in a couple of hours, and they run those 1,500 processes every day. This changed their login process, which improved the manufacturing process. This helped a lot for their high deployment.

In my current organization, it is connected only for Office 365. We are getting into other services that Azure has to offer, but that has not yet started. The first use case that we are going to do is backup and recovery through Azure AD.

We are trying to do backup for some Tier 1 applications through Commvault. We will use that data to restore within the Azure environment or Azure Virtual Network (VNet), recovering all the applications. We then make sure that we have the capability for recovering those applications end-to-end. This is where Azure AD will play a huge role, so we don't have to come down to on-premises for authentication.

• The authentication process, e.g., multi-factor authentication.
• Directory Domain Services.
• Azure AD Connect (sync services).

The biggest thing is if they could integrate with their IPS/IDS processes as well as have integration with another app, like a third-party application. Varonis was another solution that my customers are trying to integrate with ADFS. For some reason, they were seeing some difficulties with the integration. There is a case open with Microsoft on this particular thing.

The only issue is the OU is not properly synced. Therefore, you have to do a manual sync sometimes or you might lose the connector due to AD Connect or sync servers.

I have been using it for a couple of years.

I haven't seen any major issues. 

We had a customer with roughly around 80,000 users. They had three SMEs or FTEs managing their Active Directory environment or solution.

Maintenance-wise, we need at least two FTEs for backup, making sure that we have the right coverage 24/7.

I think we can add more systems to make sure that we can connect. The documentation provides more detail about the sizing information for OVA files or AD Connect files on the server. So, you have those kinds of capabilities built into the scalability.

Before, we used to manage most technical issues. For example, if there was a critical thing that had to happen, then we would open a case. The support that we used to get from Microsoft was great because we were a Gold partner with Microsoft, so we had good access for the technical team.

We don't use the technical support too much because we have engaged a partner for my current organization. 

The initial setup was so straightforward. The documentation is good. There were no problems deploying it. We did the deployment for one customer in less than an hour. Another customer took some time because it is more like a process for change management. Otherwise, the actual installation, download, and configuration took less than a couple of hours.

My previous company's focus was on how to integrate a customer's Active Directory with Okta, how to integrate it with MFAs, and how to integrate with security IMs.

The deployment was easy to do and integrate with on-premises. So if it was a small- or medium-sized customer, we could bring them into the cloud in no time. Also, we could start looking into other applications that the customer could use: Docker containers or DevOps. This is where we spent most of the time, i.e., with customer design.

Every hospital with Office 365 comes with Active Directory Domain Services so you need to sync all your users. That is how the implementation is done today.

At my previous employer, most of our customers' application deployment used Ruby on Rails in their AWS environment and were looking for an authentication process. So, we installed Active Directory or ADFS in Azure for a specific client. Then, all applications would get authenticated to Azure Active Directory and synced from their on-premises environment. 

There was another client for whom we installed Azure Directory Domain Services, which synced with their on-premises data and federated model so we could get the single sign-on. We then installed Azure VMware Solution in Azure for their expanding or extending their on-premises VMware architecture.

We created a questionnaire where we documented the customer's current environment. For example, customers wanted to sync the amount of users. We then used that questionnaire to take care of the prerequisite before we even started deploying this solution.

The whole deployment process should take less than one FTE.

It provides an organization flexibility to move towards the public cloud, so their workload can be upstream. They can see that they don't have to come down to their on-premises for any authorization authentications. That is where we were seeing more development environments, staging environments, and DevOps environments, as most of our customers were pushing towards the public cloud, which would then be integrated with their Azure Active Directory.

The licensing model is straightforward. I don't think there are any issues with the E3 license or E5 license.

We had a customer with very traditional architecture in AWS. We spun up the ECP instance, then installed and replicated the Active Directory. Other than that, I don't think we had another customer who was going in a different direction.

We have a budget for Q4 2021. By Q1 2022, we are hoping to get one hospital completely in Azure by 2022.

The only way to learn about the value that Azure brings to the table is if a customer can use as an evaluation copy or license. Then, they can integrate and push the development OUs or the test OU to make sure that they can integrate with the MFAs.

I would rate this solution as an eight or nine (out of 10).