Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We use the solution to cover Microsoft 365 licenses.

We strive to provide our users with the easiest and fastest way possible to access. Most users view the single pane of glass as a feature that is beneficial. However, the security policy is more difficult to implement and must be managed and measured by the administration.

I give Entra Admin Center for managing all identity and access tasks in our organization an eight out of ten.

We use the Apple environment. When we tried to implement Azure Active Directory in our service, it was a bit difficult. So, we chose to use an alternative such as Okta. However, Azure Active Directory is very valuable because it connects with Apple School Manager itself. I would rate Azure Active Directory an eight out of ten.

Entra saved us about one hour per month.

The overall employee user experience with Entra is a seven out of ten.

We use Active Directory to manage our Microsoft 365 licenses. The solution is very easy to use. We conducted some tests to connect this with our MBM through the identity tools, which was also very easy. We just had to follow a few steps, but we needed to be more technically prepared.

Active Directory is easy to maintain due to our control of identities. We have a controller in place to maintain and clean the Active Directory, providing new identities and removing those no longer in use.

The most valuable feature of Azure AD is its ability to connect with services outside of Microsoft, although documentation is necessary to properly implement these connections. Azure AD is a reliable and well-tested solution, so it is arguably the most popular of its kind. While Azure AD may not be the easiest to use, it covers a wide range of areas.

Using Microsoft Endpoint Manager is not difficult. We must select two out of six or eight options for Entra's conditional access. To avoid invading privacy, such as requesting a phone number or personal email, we must opt for validation via an app.

Microsoft Entra Verified ID is straightforward, but the only option to apply is to install it on our mobile device.

Microsoft Entra Verified ID is an option we offer to employees, but most of them opt to use other identification methods instead of installing the app on their devices.

I give Microsoft Entra Verified ID's privacy and control of identity data a six out of ten.

I don't feel the Entra admin center offers a single pane of glass for managing user access because we have to use more resources and it is not user-friendly.

The user sign-on experience was ultimately satisfactory, but the process of finding the best configuration was somewhat arduous due to the protection of licenses or access; the users were confronted with strict instructions on how to log on and were required to select two options to do so, such as providing a cell number or personal email or using an app to connect and verify the two steps. This was not easy for the users to feel comfortable with.

The implementation of the conditional access feature was challenging due to our users' unfamiliarity with this type of login. Managing it was difficult.

The solution can improve the educational portion because it is an administration cost.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The solution is extremely stable. I give the stability a ten out of ten.

The solution is easily scalable. I give the scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. We had Microsoft's support within our company, and the local provider in Mexico was very easy to use. We only used this part for Microsoft 365. Connecting with our MBM provider was the same process and easy to do due to all the documentation; we simply followed the steps.

One person was used for the deployment.

The implementation was completed through a reseller.

We have seen a return on investment.

The pricing for Azure Active Directory is affordable; I would rate the cost a six out of ten. As an educational company, we have access to very good discounts on the solution, making it even more affordable.

When comparing Okta and Entra as authentication services, Okta is the market leader and is my preferred choice.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We must go through the test and assess how users can be more comfortable using the combination. The administration area is the most difficult, as our users have to install an application on their personal cell phones or provide a number, which is challenging. Our staff is quite particular about privacy.

New employees may not be aware of the backend efforts to protect licenses and secure information when we ask them to use Microsoft Entra Verified ID. This is not intended to be intrusive, but when we ask a user to install the Endpoint on their personal cell phone, they may be hesitant and not want to be inconvenienced on a personal level. They would prefer the onboarding process to be easy and not involve these methods. They just want to enter a simple password and move on.

I recommend looking for documentation on Azure, as it is a huge service with great potential and can connect to many other services. Learning about Azure is very interesting.

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 predominantly use Microsoft Entra ID for running our User Directory Service. It integrates with Intune, Exchange, and SharePoint.

Microsoft Entra ID acts as our core directory. It is essential for authentication, VPN authentication, and using onsite RADIUS. It supports our user scopes for various applications. Everything we do revolves around this directory and its authentication.

If I have one criticism, it's regarding processing times. Changes or even inbound email logging tend to take a minimum of fifteen to twenty minutes. There is a need for more real-time processing. Some user updates are instantaneous, while others can take two to three hours. A feature to force manual updates would be beneficial rather than waiting for scheduled updates.

I have been working with Microsoft Entra ID since 2009.

For stability, I wouldn't give it a ten because we have experienced some outages. I would probably rate it around a seven. Generally, it's stable, but when it goes down, the impact is substantial.

From my perspective, we haven't encountered any scaling limits. It meets our needs for user productivity.

I would rate Microsoft's technical support on the lower side. While some responses are quick and satisfactory, there have been occasions where issues took weeks or circles to resolve, sometimes closing and reopening without resolution. I would rate their support around a four.

Neutral

Through acquisitions, we used Google Workspace. We have spent a considerable amount of time with it.

The initial setup of Microsoft Entra ID is not straightforward without training. However, once you are familiar with it, the process is seamless.

We did not use an integrator or consultant for the first deployment. Initially, I did it all myself, although I have a few people working with me now.

Regarding pricing, for the services we receive, it seems within the market range and about average.

Through acquisitions, we have spent considerable time evaluating Google Workspace.

Overall, Microsoft Entra ID does what we need it to do. I would rate it around a seven on a scale of one to ten.

As a bank in Turkey, we are prohibited from using cloud services for data storage. However, to utilize Microsoft Teams and implement a suitable Data Loss Prevention solution with Entra ID authentication, we adopted Microsoft Entra ID.

Microsoft Entra ID facilitated the implementation of Microsoft Teams as our collaborative platform. To prevent misuse of Teams features, particularly chat, we also integrated Symantec's data leakage prevention solution.

Microsoft Entra ID, integrated with Microsoft Teams, has enhanced the security of access to applications and resources within our environment.

People in the company are happy with Microsoft Teams, and we are quickly adopting it for collaboration. We are excited about the potential introduction of Copilot to Microsoft Teams, which is expected to be beneficial.

The most valuable aspect of Microsoft Entra ID is its ability to integrate with other cloud applications.

The quality of support has declined in recent years.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for two years.

Microsoft Entra ID has been stable since we started using it two years ago.

We experienced no scalability issues with Microsoft Entra ID. Our company's approximately 25,000 users were almost all synchronized to the cloud without performance problems.

Microsoft support has always been the best among all big companies. Although there is a general decrease in the quality of support across all companies, Microsoft Entra ID is still the best.

Positive

We previously used a local Microsoft Active Directory and integrated it with Entra ID. We also had other directory solutions like Oracle ID but chose not to switch because we depend on Microsoft solutions. Our desktops are Microsoft endpoints, and nearly half of our data center servers run Windows operating systems. We have existing long-term agreements with Microsoft, which led us to choose them for cloud adoption without considering other vendors.

We implemented Microsoft Entra ID in-house using resources and the help of Microsoft.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID nine out of ten.

We are using Azure Active Directory to secure our identity and applications throughout our corporate. All the authentication is done automatically.

It provides a single pane of glass for managing user access. It streamlines the IT access management process and improves the security of the IT systems. If there are any configuration changes in the software, they are taken care of automatically.

The integration of Azure Active Directory with other Microsoft services is very easy. We can integrate it with Teams, 365, or any other Microsoft solution.

Azure Active Directory provides a seamless and secure way for employees to access work resources that have been assigned to them. They can access the resources from anywhere and work from anywhere.

Azure Active Directory provides a robust set of features. Features such as multifactor authentication and conditional access policies are in-built. These features enhance the security of the IT systems and protect sensitive information from potential threats.

Conditional Access helps to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls. Conditional Access provides more secure authentication for us. We also use multifactor authentication to secure our enterprise from any potential threats.

Permission Management helps to bifurcate the users based on various roles, such as administrator.

Azure Active Directory has saved us time. It has helped to save four hours a day. It has also saved us money. There is about a 10% saving.

Azure Active Directory has affected the employee user experience in our organization. It is seamless. They do not get to feel it is there.

It is very simple. The Active Directory functions are very easy for us. Its integration with anything is very easy. We can easily do third-party multifactor authentication. Automating IT governance is also easy. These are the advantages that we have.

The role-based access control can be improved. Normally, the role-based access control has different privileges. Each role, such as administrator or user, has different privileges, and the setup rules for them should be defined automatically rather than doing it manually.

I have been using this solution for six years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have 1,500 users and two admins, and we plan to continue using Azure Active Directory.

Their technical support is very good. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We were using Oracle Database. We moved to Azure Active Directory because it is a higher access management solution. It is more secure and helps to manage entities across hybrid and multi-cloud environments.

Its initial setup is very easy. We had to do policy configuration and user configuration. That was it.

It does not require any maintenance from our end.

We had one person for the initial setup.

It is worth the money.

Overall, I would rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of ten. It is a complete identity access management solution for security and managing all types of multi-cloud environments.

I have a total of fifteen years of experience in the IT industry, and I have worked with multiple technologies including, Exchange, Office 365, and Intune, and then a little bit of SharePoint. I have excellent experience with Entra ID. We have handled a lot of migrations from on-prem to the cloud. We've also done reverse migrations.

We can centralize and manage everything much more effectively with this tool. We are able to leverage role-based access controls and maintain IAM (identity actions management).   

We can also leverage Defender from a policy and security perspective so we can protect against vulnerabilities of all types. 

For remote workers, when they try to log in with the domain username and password, the device will get synchronized to the Azure Active Directory using the device identification method and it will enter an identification letter based on the policy we have derived. This helps us maintain a modern workforce organization. From our modern work workspace configuration, we can centralize and manage everything - even for off-site employees. It doesn't matter the device. It can be a laptop, iPhone device, or Android device - any mobile phone device. Everything is now centralized.

Entra ID Connect is good. If you are migrating your office environment or data center environment, to the cloud, it will do the handshake between the local director and the cloud. Based on that, the objects will be synchronized from the local active directory to the Azure active directory, and that way the users can access both the cloud-related resources, as well as on-prem applications. They can do everything through a single sign-on object. 

It provides us with a single pane of glass for managing user access. We can log onto the Azure portal and maintain all Azure objects. We can enable features so that the user can access everything using the same username and password. If the company needs an MFA license, it can use the Authenticator or any phone or DB PIN of third-party feeder keys. The product allows for a lot of security features. 

As a vendor, we do also have the Defender tool which can help with security robustness.

They have a good feature called conditional access. We have a lot of conditional access policies. For example, MFA. For each application, we can specify access. We can also search for the conditional access policy in Azure Active Directory. We've used it with Endpoint Manager. We can make it so a device can only authenticate within a specific region and any other region would get blocked. We've deployed a lot of conditional access. It reduces the risk of unpatched devices gaining access to our network.

We've used Verified ID. It's good for verification purposes.

We've also used Permission Management. It helps with role-based access. We can create separate role-based access policies for distinct departments. We'll only give specific permissions to specific groups, for example, and they'd only have limited access to certain areas. We can really customize the policy to make the access very granular. We gain good visibility and control over identity permissions. We can configure and deploy down to specific locations or devices based on a customer's needs.

The product has helped us save time for IT admins and the HR department. It's easy to do a password reset. Instead of having to raise a case with every tool, IT can write a ticket for users and do it all from one spot.

Active Directory has saved our organization money. When you deploy the virtual machine, initially, if you are you have a data center server, the server will be kept online in the data center environment. However, nowadays, in the cloud environment, if you have the virtual machine for the application and you can autoscale the server, you can perform on that. If it is off-peak hours, the server will not need to function. It will be shut down based on the rules we define. During that time, the cost is minimal.

We don't have as much control. It's all Microsoft. If any service is down, it can affect a whole region. We would need to wait on a ticket and get word from Microsoft to understand the issues. If it takes longer to resolve the issue on Microsoft's side, all we can do is wait for them to fix it. If it was under our data center, we'd be able to give it immediate attention directly.

I've used the solution for almost five years. 

The stability is fine, although we cannot do anything about it. We cannot directly specify the gateway. That's decided on Microsoft's side, depending on where the user connects from. I'd rate the stability eight out of ten.

I'd rate the scalability eight out of five. Nowadays, we do not need to procure physical hardware, so it's easy to scale up. We can add new virtual machines with ease based on the application support from the OEMs. If you want to increase RAM, this is automatically done via autoscaling.

We've dealt with technical support. Whenever we have issues, we'll write a ticket. We have a premium license and we'll write tickets under that. They'll coordinate with us for any major issues.

Support used to be better. We'd prefer to fix the issue ourselves rather than go through Microsoft. However, they are still helpful and responsive under the license we have.

Neutral

Previously, I did not use anything. I've always relied on Windows-related technology. We had used Windows 2008 and 2012 servers in the past. Now we use 2019 and 2022 servers as well as the latest environment. 

I have used Okta in the past, however, I don't remember much about it. I've used previous versions of it. 

I was not directly involved in initial setup tasks, however, when they migrated the user's object from the local active directory to the cloud, then we used a third-party tool called Cluster Migration Manager, and we used the tool to migrate the object user and object functionality to Azure.

We have continuity load balancers and we have also deployed VMs and SQL databases. we've configured a lot under this product.

We do use premium licenses. One has limited access and the other has more features. Users might also have Office 365 licenses in order to use Exchange. If a company has a large number of employees, like 2,000 or so, they should look at enterprise-level licensing. Educational instituations can access educational licenses. 

We tend to use Windows, however, users may also use AWS or Google if they want and align on that. We work based on the customer's needs and align with whatever they may be.

We usually work for customers that deal with Microsoft. We're consultants, not direct Microsoft partners. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

A lot of our clients basically want to go to the cloud and they don't know how to proceed with doing so. The first thing we recommended is to make sure their identity is in Azure AD as a hybrid approach. We're not getting rid of their on-premises environment, and instead basically, if they're planning to go to Office 365,  they will be able to take advantage of the Azure Active Directory.

Especially nowadays, people are working from home and we have a client that we actually started migrating to Azure Active Directory and moving some of their applications into the cloud. Since COVID struck, and a lot of people are working from home, since the data center's on-premises, it is very hard for them to bring all of their users into VPN and some of them there are outdated and they can't really accommodate the number of users that are working from home.

However, with Azure AD, some of their applications we have in there they can access from anywhere - even from their home basically, as long as they have internet access. Some of the applications we brought into Azure AD include the Windows Virtual Desktop to basically run their application in the cloud. We built a gateway to their own premises data center and they go into the Windows Virtual Desktop and they can authenticate using Azure AD and then they can access their on-premises application. It's basically the transition from being on-site all the time to working from home. It's a smooth transition because of Azure AD.

The solution's ease of use is one of its most valuable features. You can access it anywhere and the integration into existing and some legacy applications is good. You can plug into single sign-on self-service, password reset, or conditional access. If you're inside, you don't need to do multi-factor authentication, MFA's, built-in. 

The licensing could be improved. There are premium one, premium two or P1, P2 licensing right now and a lot of organizations are a little bit confused about the licensing information that they have. They want to know how much they're spending. It's not really clear cut. 

Transitioning to the cloud is very difficult. They need the training to make it easier. They should probably put in more training or even include it on the licensing so that there are people that manage their environment have somewhere to come to learn on their own. Maybe there could be some workshop or training within Azure. 

The solution could offer better notifications. They do upgrades once or twice a year. They need to do a better job of alerting users to the changes that are upcoming - especially on the portal where you manage your users and accounts. There needs to be enough time to showcase the new features so your organization is not surprised or put off by sudden changes. 

I've been at this organization since 2016, and therefore have been working with the solution for four years.

The solution is pretty stable. Once in a while, we get notifications and do a health check if some things are not working or there is some feature or some issue that is acting up. However, that is very seldom.

Scalability is really not a problem. You don't have to really worry about that as it's more of a service. It's not like having your own AD that you need to span the main controllers or to purchase hardware. Scalability from 250 users all the way up to a hundred thousand users can be accommodated easily.

Technical support can be hit and miss sometimes. You get like a first-year technician and you don't get the right person. It gets bounced around and eventually, it's either we fix it or somebody's smart enough to know what the issue is. If I was going to rate it from one to 10, say 10 is the best and one is worst, I'd rate it at 7.5 or so.

We've been doing implementations for a while now so for us the initial setup is straightforward. It becomes complex if a company is coming from a complex environment in the beginning, however, nowadays it's straightforward.

While planning, the first thing we do is an assessment and then we go to the design phase from the assessment on what the company has. Then, from the design phase, we designed the Azure infrastructure and do the implementation. The first thing is, of course, the identity. In general, deployment takes two or sometimes three months.

The initial investment is high due to the migration if you have a legacy environment like an on-premise Active Directory. However, after that initial investment, you're just paying for the license to hold your information and that has your Active Directory. There's a return on investment probably after few months. In that time, you'll get your money spent back due to the fact that you don't have to purchase a lot of hardware initially. The initial investment is really only to migrate your information or your data. That's where there are costs for a company usually.

It's offered as a service. We're using the latest version. We use it with various versions of the cloud (public, private, cloud). That said, a lot of the time the organization also has already some Active Directory on-premises, and that is something that we help out with in terms of bringing them to the cloud, to the Azure Active Directory.

I'd advise new users not to be afraid to go to the cloud. The cloud has a lot of benefits, including software as a service, SaaS applications. You don't have to worry about hardware updates, or maintaining a license for different applications. Just go start small. If you're worried, start as a hybrid, which is most of the time maybe 80%, 90%. You can go from lift and shift to Azure Active Directory. If you're a new company, just go right to the cloud. It's easy. You don't have the legacy infrastructure to worry about.

Going to the cloud is as secure as ever. I feel a lot of organizations when you go to the cloud, especially Azure Active Directory, think you're sharing a piece of a rack due to the fact that it's in the cloud with Azure companies. It is a bit more complicated than that. However, the security is there. Azure Active Directory and going into the cloud has been around for 13 years. It's no longer a new or scary subject.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. If they fixed little things like notifications and licensing issues, I would give them a perfect score.

We have been using Microsoft Enterprise for ten years, and we actually started beginning to really use it about two years ago. Earlier, we had an access manager on the premises, but everything is moving to the cloud. So we are moving our access management and identity management solutions to the cloud as well.

The whole access management solution is valuable. In 2015, we were selecting a new access management solution, and because it was already integrated, we started using it. 

Integration with Defender allows us to get alerts and respond to them by blocking users. Microsoft Entra ID has streamlined and centralized our device management and threat response processes.

We are looking for more customization with BRAIN and everything else, and while they are following up on that, we want some more of it.

We have experienced some downtime because of the use of the data centers.

In Microsoft technical support or Microsoft Denmark, we have an account manager and strategist, whom we contact along with the suppliers who have their own technicians. The experience has been positive.

Positive

Earlier, we had an access manager on the premises before moving to Microsoft Enterprise for cloud-based solutions. In 2015, we selected a different access management solution initially.

Would you rate the overall solution on a scale of 1 to 10? Yeah, excellent. From one to ten, would you mind the call? I think, yeah, excellent.