Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Microsoft Entra ID vs Thales SafeNet Trusted Access comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 11, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Microsoft Entra ID
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
1st
Ranking in Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
1st
Ranking in Access Management
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
266
Ranking in other categories
Authentication Systems (1st), Identity Management (IM) (2nd), Microsoft Security Suite (2nd)
Thales SafeNet Trusted Access
Ranking in Single Sign-On (SSO)
21st
Ranking in Identity and Access Management as a Service (IDaaS) (IAMaaS)
26th
Ranking in Access Management
26th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Single Sign-On (SSO) category, the mindshare of Microsoft Entra ID is 11.3%, down from 27.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Thales SafeNet Trusted Access is 1.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Single Sign-On (SSO) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Entra ID11.3%
Thales SafeNet Trusted Access1.9%
Other86.8%
Single Sign-On (SSO)
 

Featured Reviews

JP
Senior Information Security Engineer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Implementing seamless integration boosts secure access and supports Zero Trust
What I appreciate the most about Microsoft Entra ID is that it integrates seamlessly with all the Defender products and is easy to use. Microsoft Entra ID's integration capabilities influence our Zero Trust model by allowing us to enforce our Zero Trust model. Conditional access policies allow us to leverage Microsoft Entra ID to verify that devices signing in to our cloud services are coming from registered devices, and that people are passing all the other requirements we have in order to complete sign-on or conditional access policies. Since implementing Microsoft Entra ID, I've observed changes in the frequency and nature of identity-related security incidents. The organization already had it implemented when I arrived, and I've been working to enhance it. Better configuration of Microsoft Entra ID has allowed us to better protect our organization from threats. Having it alone isn't a solution, but ensuring proper configuration goes a long way in preventing future compromises. My company's approach to defending against token theft and nation-state attacks has evolved since implementing Microsoft Entra ID. We haven't experienced any known compromises from nation-state attacks, and implementing newer features gives me more confidence in our protection. Regarding device-bound passkeys in Microsoft Authenticator and our approach to phishing-resistant authentication, we are currently implementing Microsoft Entra ID certificate-based authentication. Adding a strong form of MFA is important as we found it to be the most cost-effective way. While other solutions might be equally or more secure, they are significantly more expensive. Having worked as an IT consultant mainly with the Microsoft stack across various industries, I have experience with different identity management solutions. Microsoft Entra ID remains the best option. The major advantages when comparing it to Okta include integration with Defender products, Defender for Identities' integration with conditional access policies, and insider threat management integration for blocking sign-ins based on risk factors. The enhancement of Microsoft Entra ID's implementation is relatively straightforward. My main concern is the occasional lack of documentation and the frequency of changes, which can make feature location challenging.
GauravMathur - PeerSpot reviewer
Vice President Information Technology at a tech services company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Simple to use, easy to set up, and performs well
I'm not saying that we want to switch the product, however, since the requirement has increased, we are looking at other options that may be better suited. The scalability may not there. We have a few specific use cases where we have to avoid the cloud. Especially in Europe, we're not allowed to carry their phone in factories. We need some sort of secure access solution. There's a dependency on Microsoft Azure. I am paying to SafeNet and in parallel, I also need to pay Microsoft to use the same service. That makes no sense, to pay double. If they could do something about it, that would be very good.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It's multi-tenant, residing in multiple locations. The authentication happens quickly. Irrespective of whether I'm in Australia, the US, India, or Africa, I don't see any latency. Those are the good features that I rely on."
"Microsoft Entra ID is pretty user-friendly and intuitive. The graphics are particularly useful when it comes to the auditing part."
"I would rate the solution as 9. It is a very good solution for unified management."
"Scalability has been the biggest benefit."
"The implementation of device-bound passkeys in Microsoft Authenticator helps with phishing-resistant authentication."
"The benefits of using this solution were realized straightaway."
"In terms of identity management, it helps to improve security posture. It generally helps in terms cloud security, simplicity, and single sign-on for multiple apps."
"The best thing about Active Directory is its compatibility. It works with lots of third-party vendors. We're using multiple products, and they're all integrated with our Active Directory."
"The solution is simple to use."
"The validation and integrity features of the endpoint are great."
"The interface is easy to use."
 

Cons

"Microsoft's technical support has shortcomings where improvements are required."
"I think the documentation and configuration are both areas that need improvement."
"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."
"Sometimes, level-one support lacks the immediate information needed, causing delays in receiving appropriate support."
"Anytime that we have tried to allow Microsoft Entra ID to authenticate our users to come back on-premises, we have run into some issues, usually with latency or delay."
"I want to see new functionalities for the active directory."
"At first, it was a bit challenging to come up with a workaround that would get authentication to work."
"In a hybrid deployment, when we update a license by changing the UPN or email address of a user, 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."
"There's a dependency on Microsoft Azure."
"SafeNet's reporting and monitoring features could be improved."
"Lacks the ability to integrate network monitoring solutions and authenticate the app users."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is relatively affordable, especially compared to Okta, a pricey solution."
"The licensing cost is a bit prohibitive."
"If you are dealing with one supplier with an out-of-the-box solution, which provides you end-to-end capabilities, then it is naturally cheaper and less of a headache to manage and operate."
"The licensing costs are yearly. There is a standard fee per user."
"I think the pricing is efficient, but the licensing is overly complicated and difficult to understand. There are many tricks in the licensing that weigh against us."
"It comes free with the Microsoft account. We have a yearly agreement, and all products are covered under it."
"Microsoft Entra ID service can be quite costly due to its hidden expenses linked to usage."
"The cost of Entra ID depends entirely on our organization's specific needs and use cases."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Single Sign-On (SSO) solutions are best for your needs.
883,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
Government
8%
Performing Arts
10%
Government
8%
Legal Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business85
Midsize Enterprise38
Large Enterprise155
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

How does Duo Security compare with Microsoft Authenticator?
We switched to Duo Security for identity verification. We’d been using a competitor but got the chance to evaluate Duo for 30 days, and we could not be happier. Duo Security is easy to configure a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Active Directory?
My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing of Microsoft Entra ID is that it is decent.
What needs improvement with Azure Active Directory?
I think Microsoft Entra ID could be improved by assigning permissions to nested groups in the next release.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Azure AD, Azure Active Directory, Azure Active Directory, Microsoft Authenticator
SafeNet Trusted Access, Gemalto SafeNet Trusted Access
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Microsoft Entre ID is trusted by companies of all sizes and industries including Walmart, Zscaler, Uniper, Amtrak, monday.com, and more.
IBM, Western Union, Vanderbilt University Medical Centre, Novartis, and AT&T.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Entra ID vs. Thales SafeNet Trusted Access and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
883,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.