We performed a comparison between Microsoft Entra ID and NetIQ Access Manager based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Access Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Syncing with our on-prem Active Directory is valuable because we do not have to keep multiple identities for each of our staff members. We can easily evaluate login risks and provide access for SSO via 365 into applications, such as Salesforce, and other things that we run our business on."
"I would say that Azure AD's pricing is very reasonable because of the structure and in terms of the solution."
"The solution allows users to authenticate from home, and the Office 360 integration is advantageous."
"Overall the solution functions very well, such as the ability to access it from the cloud."
"The security and infrastructure management features are the most valuable ones for us."
"Overall, I think the support and the pictorial format of this web portal are very good."
"It is one of those costs where you can't really quantify a return on investment. In the grand scheme of things, if we didn't have it, we would probably have a lot more breaches. It would be a lot harder to detect issues because we would have people using static usernames and passwords for various sites, making us open to a lot more attacks. The amount of security and benefit that we get out of it is not quantifiable but the return of investment from a qualitative point of view is much higher than not having it."
"Entra ID can be deployed using a hybrid model for organizations with a significant on-premises presence, or in a fully cloud-based setup for those that do not."
"There are lots of options to customize the solution to your needs."
"It's very easy to integrate with applications."
"The most valuable features of NetIQ Access Manager are SSO and Multi-Factor Authentication."
"The features that we have found most valuable with NetIQ Access Manager are its single sign-on and two factor two second factor database."
"The single sign-on feature is excellent."
"Be aware that it may not work perfectly globally yet. There are still glitches with the solution in Africa."
"In terms of stability, sometimes the more applications you integrate, the more it becomes a little bit unstable."
"The visibility in the GUI is not good for management. There are a lot of improvements that could make it better. It should be more user-friendly overall. It is not user-friendly because everything keeps changing on the platform. I can understand it because I know the platform, am familiar with it, and use it every day. However, for a lot of clients, they don't use it every day or are not familiar with it, so it should be more user friendly."
"An area where there is room for improvement is the ease of use of the dashboards."
"The documentation could be better."
"Four years ago, we had an issue with Azure AD. We wanted to reverse sync from Azure AD to on-prem Active Directory, but we couldn't achieve this. Azure AD could connect only in one way, for example, from your site to Azure. If you needed to do the reverse and connect from Azure to on-prem, there was no way to achieve it. We asked Microsoft, and they told us that they don't support it."
"The most challenging aspect I found was the creation of organizational units and specific domains. They have a tool called Bastion, which is expensive and a little bit confusing."
"The ease of use regarding finding audit information for users could also be improved."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the security of the infrastructure and the server and the working networking device."
"I would love to see the upgrade procedure handled more effectively. I would prefer to have OVS installation possibilities, although the upgrade procedures should include the OS as well. You should be able to use the whole application as an appliance."
"Classification of junctions and new versions of applications, such as APIs, can be added to enable the use of more devices that utilize biometrics for Multi-Factor Authentication to improve the solution."
"The application portal could be improved with more options and easier customization."
"Having the ability to easily extract and view and compare and version control configurations would be ideal."
Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Access Management with 190 reviews while NetIQ Access Manager is ranked 14th in Access Management with 5 reviews. Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6, while NetIQ Access Manager is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Microsoft Entra ID writes "Allows users to authenticate from home and has excellent integrations in a simple, stable solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetIQ Access Manager writes "Multi-Factor Authentication, stable, and extremely scalable". Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Yubico YubiKey and Cisco Duo, whereas NetIQ Access Manager is most compared with Okta Workforce Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Auth0 and Symantec Siteminder. See our Microsoft Entra ID vs. NetIQ Access Manager report.
See our list of best Access Management vendors.
We monitor all Access Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
