We performed a comparison between Azure Active Directory and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, users favor Azure Active Directory over Fortinet FortiAuthenticator because it has a free option and users also report an ROI.
"The most valuable aspect of the product is that it is Microsoft-based and it supports all Microsoft technology."
"The most relevant feature is Omada's reporting engine. Omada never 'forgets' and archives every process. All steps an admin, user, or manager has executed, are recorded in Omada."
"The customer success and support teams have been crucial."
"We are able to onboard new user accounts much faster by automating the process and standardizing our operations globally. Previously, there were many individual processes and manual admin interactions. We also see a lot of cost savings and benefits because through automation and standardization."
"Omada's onboarding features reflect our processes for onboarding new employees well. That is the primary reason we use this solution. We use role-based access control. I'm not sure how much it has improved our security posture, but it's made managing identities more convenient."
"Omada's most valuable aspect is its usability."
"User-friendly solution."
"The most valuable feature for us is the ability to set up connectors to various IT systems and offer a wide range of supported connectors."
"Enables easy integration, allowing for 2FA with our VPN."
"The product is stable and reliable."
"Features the addition and removal of access as needed for the VPN."
"It reduces the need for network administrator intervention by allowing the user to perform their own registration and resolve their own password problems and issues."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"This is a scalable product."
"I work a lot with Fortinet products and I call the support often. They are very quick to respond and the support is very good."
"Simple to deploy, simple to use, and user-friendly."
"The features around permissions are excellent."
"If you want to replicate a website at the frontend in Azure, it's very easy to do it globally."
"Conditional Access is a helpful feature because it allows us to provide better security for our users."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that is easy to use."
"If a company has hundreds of users that already exist in the cloud, and it now wants to enable those same users to be present in third-party applications that their business uses, like Atlassian or GoToMeeting, the provisioning technology can assist in achieving that."
"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."
"Single sign-on provides flexibility and helps because users don't want to remember so many passwords when logging in. It's a major feature. Once you log in, you have access to all the applications. It also enables us to provide backend access controls to our users, especially when it comes to groups, as we are trying to normalize things."
"It offers good Microsoft integration capabilities."
"If I had to name one thing, it would be the user interface (UI)."
"When you do a recalculation of an identity, it's hard to understand what was incorrect before you started the recalculation, and which values are actually updated... all you see are all the new fields that are provisioned, instead of seeing only the fields that are changed."
"If you're running Omada on a cloud service, you may have some issues deploying the newest release. Sometimes, the latest release doesn't adapt to the processes we have already installed. Identity Access Management is a critical system for our organization, and we need to ensure that everyone has the same access as they did before the release."
"The security permission inside Omada needs improvement. It's tricky to set up."
"The backend is pretty good but the self-service request access screen, the GUI, needs improvement. It's an old-fashioned screen. Also, Omada has reports, but I wouldn't dare show them to the business because they look like they're from 1995. I know they are working on these things and that’s good, because they’re really needed."
"The comprehensiveness of Omada's out-of-the-box connectors for the applications we use could be better. We are getting a new HR system called Cornerstone for which they do not have an out-of-the-box connector, so we have to take the REST connector and play around with it."
"Omada's reporting functionality is limited and could benefit from greater customization."
"In our organization, all the data is event-driven, which means that if an attribute is changed in the source system, it can be updated within a few seconds in all end-user systems. There is room for improvement in Omada regarding that. Omada is still batch-based for some processes, so sometimes it can take an hour or even four hours before the execution is run and the update is sent."
"We would like to see Linux-based operating systems be able to integrate with FortiAuthenticator to get two-factor authentication running on them. as well. This is a shortcoming that I have faced a few times already."
"If you want some other FortiAuthenticator from one site to another site, you should have requirements, but really if you have authentication and directory or another solution, you should change the password of the authenticator between the solution and the directory and other things. So transfer of data and other information should be simpler."
"I would like to see more security features in reference to identity login or identity identification."
"I would like to see more ways to authenticate, such as adding facial recognition to the two-factor, where you log into your phone or another device."
"The only issue I encounter is that when not using FortiAuthenticator for an extended period, it's typical to encounter some obstacles in the configuration process that you need to address."
"They could expand FortiAuthenticator's capabilities to accommodate a broader range of environments."
"The product must provide full support for third-party FIDO security keys."
"There are some protocols, such as SHA and SHA-2, that are not supported."
"We would like to see more system updates."
"Its area of improvement is more about the synchronization of accounts and the intervals for that. Sometimes, there're customers with other network challenges, and it takes a while for synchronization to happen to the cloud. There is some component of their on-prem that is delaying things getting to the cloud. The turnaround time for these requests is very time-sensitive. I don't mean this as derogatory for this service, but in my experience, that happens a lot."
"Documentation I think is always the worst part with what Azure's doing right now across the board."
"I believe it can also be integrated into other Microsoft products, as well as more integrations with other solutions."
"Sometimes, what one customer may like, another may not like it. We have had customers asking, "Why is Microsoft forcing us to do this?" For example, when you use Exchange Server on-premise, then you can customize it for your company and these customizations are unlimited. However, if you use Exchange Online or with Microsoft 365, then your ability to make modifications is limited. So, only the cloud versus is limited."
"Compatibility features for legacy system integration with new features will be challenging at times."
"The Cloud Provisioning Agent cannot provision a lot of the information that AD Connect does. For starters, the lightweight version cannot synchronize device information. If you have computers on-premises, the information about them will not be synchronized by the Cloud Provisioning Agent. In addition, if you have a user on the cloud and he changes his password, that information should be written back to the on-premises instance. But that workflow cannot be done with the lightweight agent. It can only be done with the more robust version."
"To look at more documentation, engineering, or an open standard would be nice."
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is ranked 5th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 52 reviews while Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 190 reviews. Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiAuthenticator writes "A reasonably priced solution that can be scaled toward different functionalities and offers flexible SMS messaging". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Entra ID writes "Allows users to authenticate from home and has excellent integrations in a simple, stable solution". Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Fortinet FortiToken, Fortinet FortiNAC, Cisco Duo and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, whereas Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Yubico YubiKey and PingFederate. See our Fortinet FortiAuthenticator vs. Microsoft Entra ID report.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors, best Authentication Systems vendors, and best Identity Management (IM) vendors.
We monitor all Single Sign-On (SSO) 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.