Microsoft Identity Manager Reviews

The primary use case is for the single migration of the user from on-premises to Azure Active Directory in the cloud. It is also used for the Microsoft authentication application for mobile devices.

We authenticate on the smart device back to back so they can access their emails and other applications.

We are planning to use this for the Windows 10 authentication as well as directly from the Azure Active Directory.

The most valuable and most interesting feature is the conditional access. 

It can provide a low formulation combination based on the extra files that we can work on to verify the solution.

The information that is available for the Active Directory portal is segregated here and there. It's not in one single location where you can see, for example, all of the security features and maybe the customization feature.

In the next release of this solution, I would like to see the manageability, the web-based access to the portal, and the reconfiguration of things to be made simpler and more straightforward.

We have been selling this solution for the last five years.

It's stable, but it's maybe a bit more challenging than I have seen in the last five years.

This solution is scalable. We have plans to increase our usage in the future.

The number of users varies. There can be anywhere from 10,000 to maybe more than 100,000 users, who are made up of IT, administrators, managers, and architects.

We have been in touch with technical support. They are good. Normally they are available to assist and they are knowledgable.

Our previous system was based on an on-premises solution. Now, the on-premises products are integrated with the cloud, which is what made the difference.

The initial setup is straightforward and can be deployed in one week.

It was installed by my internal team.

I would say that it's the best solution on the market and I would go ahead with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is ID provisioning. We use it to manage the entire life cycle of an employee from their entrance to exit from the organization, which includes credential management and passport management.

What makes this solution attractive is the licensing model. Microsoft Identity Manager is included in premium versions of Azure AD and in enterprise agreements such as E3. This makes the solution very attractive to many of our clients who are subscribed to those products.

The governance reporting of the solution can be improved, as it can be difficult to get good, intelligible reports.
Microsoft could implement an API of some sort to allow report customization or some form of SQL model, to further customize modules and improve the reporting. That would be a major improvement to the product.

The solution is stable. 

As long as the right infrastructure is provided the solution is scalable.
I think any organization can use it. 

From my view, Microsoft doesn't invest much in this product and it can take a while to resolve any issues. 

Neutral

The setup is not difficult, although in my experience sometimes I ran into situations where I had to deal with a number of bugs. With five being difficult and one being easy, I would rate this solution a two point five in terms of setup, configuration, and implementation difficulty. The solution requires patching or tweaking right away, and configuration requires some level of experience.

The solution is included in the Microsoft E3 license and premium subscriptions of Azure AD.

In my view, this solution is more appropriate for organizations that have legacy applications, separate identity stores, as well as an active directory.

I rate this solution a six out of ten.

I'm currently evaluating SailPoint and I'm very interested in it. I expect they have a long-term vision for identity and access governance that Microsoft doesn't have. I expect richer support and an easier approach to implementation compared to MIM.

We are currently using this solution, and we are also a partner. We have implemented it in different sectors for different use cases. For example, we have implemented it in the financial sector to synchronize and automate lifecycle management. We have also done deployments to only provide self-service for resetting passwords. We also have many deployments related to lifecycle management in schools and the education sector.

It is one of the easiest products to implement, which is one of the main advantages. The integration is easy. Unlike other products, it is not complicated to integrate.

It requires a lot of improvements. Microsoft is killing this product and migrating some of the features to Azure AD. The last version of this solution was 2016. If it is going to stay and integrate with Azure AD, its integration needs to be worked on in terms of connectors, etc. It doesn't seem that they are improving it alone. Microsoft wants to integrate it with Azure AD, but the integration is still not complete. 

Their support is bad, and it should be improved.

I have been using this solution since 2006, but it had a different name at that time. 

It is stable.

It is not scalable. Once you have more than 100K users, it is not scalable. It can't scale and perform at that level.

Their support is bad. I would rate them one out of five.

Its setup is straightforward.

It is easy to implement and integrate, but I would advise keeping it in the scope of only synchronization and not governance. That's because it lacks governance features.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

Our primary use case for this solution is to secure the identity of our customer. It is required for compliance and for making our systems very secure.

This solution helps in that it adds to our security.

The most valuable feature is that it provides protection for our company documents.

This product integrates with our SharePoint Global Portal.

This product was only launched two or three years ago, and it is still in the process of becoming stable.

We have to make use of the current feature set before looking for new features.

This product was launched two to three years back and it is becoming stable.

The technical support for this solution is ok.

We began using this product because we moved to the cloud. Earlier, we were using on-premise systems and at that time, this kind of security was not needed as much. 

The initial setup was straightforward.

We used a consultant for the deployment of this solution and our experience was ok.

We are not looking specifically for ROI with this product. Rather, it is used for compliance.

I would recommend this product to a colleague at another company.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the fact that I can use it to track who is sending which email, who is accessing which documents or which files, etc. These tools help me improve security within the enterprise environment.

Support needs improvement. It is very easy to get somebody to help with the implementation of the Microsoft product itself, but when it comes to support it's a challenge as an IT team. You have to tell people, "Well we need to get back to Microsoft" and that can take forever.

Sometimes the waiting process really gets you stuck. If you have deployed a feature in your environment and you're using it and you cannot get the necessary support to be able to get back aspects of it, then it's as if Microsoft has whet our appetite, but then we can't use it any more. It's frustrating for everyone.

I want to be able to have access to somebody from Microsoft to be able to help me when I have challenges.

We have a lot of end users and a few admins. Right now, we have about 180 users on the solution.

On a scale of one to ten, I'd put technical support at seven. There's a lot of room for improvement. What really has helped us is the reviews that are put out by other admins who have been able to resolve the same problems. You can find an identical problem and see its resolution. If you are able to access those reviews, it helps you to navigate and try to solve your problems. That's what helps a lot of the time, as opposed to speaking with an actual person from technical support.

The difficulty of the initial setup is always different. It depends on which application you deploy. Some are complex, some are straightforward. If you're deploying Microsoft XG, it's quite straight forward. If you're deploying something like MGM it's a little more confusing, and you always need somebody to help you to be able to do that. SharePoint is also a little bit confusing to handle. 

Likewise Identity Manager looks a little more confusing in terms of its implementation process. There are other products from Microsoft that are more straightforward to implement or deploy, however.

Over the years Microsoft has improved a lot. We don't have problems like we used to have in previous versions. There's still more room for improvement, however. They have begun listening to their customers, and they are bringing out features that customers are asking for and if I can get that from an OEM it gives me the assurance that everyone is being taken care of.

I would recommend the solution, however if a person is considering implementing it, they need to have a plan. Otherwise, they might start off and only after realize that there are options that weren't implemented well. It's good to always have a plan of what you want to implement something new. Review it and let your team query it, so you know exactly what you are deploying. 

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.