Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

Microsoft Authenticator is a third-party application used to authenticate users in our Microsoft environment, such as accessing emails or applications like Excel, Word, or any other application. It is also used for online login purposes. The configuration process is simple from the admin side; we just need to enable it for the user. The user will receive a notification on their mobile device and then needs to download the Microsoft Authenticator app. They can add their account by entering their username and password. Once this is done, the configuration is complete.

While using any applications in the environment, users need to authenticate using Microsoft Authenticator. They will receive a one-time password that expires in thirty seconds, which they must use for authentication. One advantage of using Microsoft Authenticator is that it ensures the security of user accounts. Even if someone tries to hack or authenticate into another person's Microsoft account, they will be unable to do so without the password. The user will receive a notification if someone attempts to access their account and can choose whether to grant them access or not. If any unauthorized access is detected, we will investigate to identify the person behind the authentication attempt.

Microsoft Authenticator is highly secure. It is connected to its own servers. Using this application employs encryption methods, and the user has the right to access it. Additionally, we can utilize the biometric fingerprint tool for authentication, ensuring that only one person has access to it. This feature is extremely beneficial.

The cost of licensing always has room for improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Authenticator for three years.

Microsoft Authenticator is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. We downloaded it from the Google Play store and used a name and password. That's all it takes, and we're ready to go. The configuration duration is set on an admin site, but the actual configuration must be done on the end devices themselves. This can include mobile devices, tablets, or any other device that we can use, and takes about ten minutes to complete.

We have observed a 60 percent return on investment with Microsoft Authenticator, which provides us with peace of mind, knowing that there is no unauthorized access occurring.

Microsoft Authenticator is included in the package when we purchase a license from Microsoft.

I rate Microsoft Authenticator ten out of ten.

We have 120 users. The solution is used daily and is required whenever a Microsoft account needs authentication to ensure that only the data owner or email owner has the proper authentication to access the mailbox or application.

I will advise people to continue using the Microsoft Authenticator because it provides security and data protection. From a cybersecurity perspective, it is beneficial to use the Microsoft Authenticator for the authentication of Microsoft products.

Microsoft Entra ID is used to control access to our environment.

Microsoft Entra ID has been most beneficial in the realm of IT management, although not significantly impactful on user experience. Microsoft Entra ID is not solely for user management or enhancing user experience. Rather, it greatly aids in constructing operational processes for IT management, as its capabilities extend far beyond user and access management. In terms of refining user experience, it certainly contributes to areas like authentication, particularly in diverse authentication methods and device-based authentication. 

The best thing about Microsoft Entra ID is the ease of setup.

If we're highly experienced or dealing with intricate scenarios, Microsoft Entra ID might not be the most suitable solution. In my opinion, it resolves the majority of cases, but it lacks comprehensive management tools for access control. I don't consider it the premier tool for user or identity management. While it covers many aspects, we'll need supplementary tools to effectively manage access rules. This deficiency is quite significant. To make it viable for a large organization, substantial additional development is necessary.

Microsoft Entra ID provides a way to manage user access, but it's not an effective tool for access management due to its excessive complexity. This is primarily because the process needs to be performed manually. Therefore, it lacks a user-friendly interface where we could define all access rules and scenarios comprehensively.

Zero trust is not easy to set up, especially for large organizations. While it could be implemented for smaller organizations, the extensive manual configuration required makes it impractical for larger enterprises.

Microsoft Entra ID's impact on access and identity management is relatively limited.

The single interface for managing permissions, permission rules, or conditional access policies needs to be significantly more user-friendly. While it remains functional for IT departments, it is not particularly user-friendly for end users. There is considerable room for improvement in this regard.

Microsoft Entra ID offers various features, but its setup and utilization are quite complex due to the lack of a user-friendly interface for end users. Unless we allocate a significant budget and a substantial workforce to configure it for end users, making it usable remains a challenge. Moreover, even with these investments, the cost of using Microsoft Entra ID would become prohibitively high. Thus, it's evident that the platform lacks the necessary functionality to provide a satisfactory end-user experience. 

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for eight years.

The solution is stable. I have not encountered any stability issues.

Microsoft Entra ID is scalable.

I have had a positive experience with technical support. Additionally, if we opt for premium support or possess varying levels of support agreements with Microsoft, we can access excellent support.

Positive

The deployment is quite straightforward. It's truly uncomplicated from an IT perspective to utilize Microsoft Entra ID. It's not overly intricate in that aspect. However, when we delve into end-user scenarios, and the management and configuration of conditional access policies, permission management, and other similar aspects, it does introduce a certain level of complexity, naturally.

Microsoft Entra ID service can be quite costly due to its hidden expenses linked to usage. This cost ambiguity arises from our inability to accurately project expenses prior to implementation, contingent upon the specific features employed. The expense is particularly notable if we intend to utilize it for comprehensive identity management. Nevertheless, alternative budget-friendly identity management solutions are limited within the current market landscape.

There are no additional costs for maintenance because most of the parts are cloud-based and managed by Microsoft. This means we can't manage it ourselves. However, if we had a private cloud with Microsoft Entra ID, for instance, then we could manage our entire cloud ourselves. This would allow us to have good control of the costs. But there are many small components in Microsoft Entra ID. So, when we are planning to build something with Microsoft Entra ID, we might struggle to understand the total cost for the users. It's difficult to comprehend all the necessary pieces we need to purchase to construct a scenario. Only after we have designed this solution, we will be able to see the complete cost. Unfortunately, there are numerous hidden costs in Microsoft Entra ID that I am not particularly fond of.

If we consider the top three or four management tools, they offer numerous out-of-the-box features for connecting to HR sources. Furthermore, we have a straightforward method for establishing access policies based on our HR data. In my opinion, competitors hold an advantage over Microsoft Entra ID.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID eight out of ten.

We can achieve a great deal with conditional access policies; however, using the interface itself is quite cumbersome and not very user-friendly. Consequently, there are very few tools currently available that offer a well-designed user interface for managing access policies. This is consistently a highly intricate scenario.

Based on my experience, Okta functions primarily as a solution for managing customer access or customer identity, rather than being the conventional method for handling business or corporate identities. It's more focused on robustly managing customer identities. However, in my previous procurement roles, it has never been selected as the primary option. This could be due to my limited exposure to customer identity management. Thus, I find it challenging to draw a direct comparison. On the other hand, Microsoft Azure Active Directory can certainly serve as a customer identity management solution and is comparable in this aspect. However, the comparison doesn't hold true for user identity management.

The maintenance is controlled by Microsoft because the solution is on their cloud.

Organizations should refrain from exclusively using Microsoft Entra ID for all identity and access management scenarios. This is because relying solely on Microsoft Entra ID necessitates creating additional components ourselves to address aspects that cannot be readily addressed using the default Microsoft Entra ID setup. We are required to construct these components and establish phases for end users, as Microsoft Entra ID does not encompass all these functionalities. A more effective approach could involve integrating Microsoft Entra ID with another product, such as SailPoint. This combined utilization would likely result in a robust identity management solution. It's important to recognize that Microsoft Entra ID alone cannot adequately address all our scenarios.

We use Azure Active Directory for our project management proposals. Employees who are onboarding in Active Directory can use project filters for authentication and other back-end tasks. There are different installed environments and staging areas. Different areas are being used for different purposes.

Azure Active Directory provides us with a single pane of glass for managing user access.

Azure AD made organizing information much easier for our organization. The solution also helped the IT and HR departments save up to 50 percent of their time. Based on the time savings, I would say that Azure AD also helped save costs within our organization.

Azure AD positively affected our employees' experience in the company by providing them with a single sign-on portal to access all their accounts in an easy way.

Overall, I think the support and the pictorial format of this web portal are very good. Everything is just a click away, which is very convenient. Previously, we had to write a configuration file to do anything, but now everything can be configured through the user interface. This is a great improvement.

The security policy of Azure Active Directory should be based on a matrix so that we can easily visualize which users have access to what.

I have been using Azure AD for three years.

I give Azure Active Directory an eight out of ten.

I recommend Azure Active Directory.

We use Azure AD which enables our customers to remotely access the shared machines within their office, allowing them to work from any location.

Our primary customer transitioned from using a local cluster to utilizing Azure. They initially utilized Hyper-V and have now combined Azure AD with SharePoint Office 365. This new setup has proven to be much more convenient for them compared to their previous local arrangement, which did not work well. With Azure AD, I was able to exert greater control over the content on their machine.

Azure AD saved time for our IT administrators and HR departments, particularly when they need to reset their own passwords or grant permissions to other people within the group by themselves. This saved around 60 hours in total.

Azure AD helped save around 18,000 euros.

Azure AD significantly improved the employee user experience in the company by providing them with enhanced accessibility to their information and facilitating seamless login and logout from their machines while working from home. This is a significant shift from the previous system that relied on a local username and VPN connection and was limited to a fixed cluster.

The most valuable feature is the ease with which a person can log in remotely using only a password or pin without creating a profile or policy.

The permission management is a mess because it is not centralized, especially when we go back from Azure, which is quite big to SharePoint. This is not really well done and has room for improvement.

I would appreciate it if Azure AD could provide an option to simplify its interface by removing unnecessary features for small companies with a maximum of 50 users. This would make it more user-friendly for our customers who find the current interface overwhelming due to its numerous options.

I have been using the solution for almost 12 years.

Azure AD is a stable solution.

Although Azure AD is intended to be scalable, we have not yet verified its scalability by adding more users.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment required around six hours. I only had to import to write the existing users into Azure.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The solution can be cheaper.

I evaluated Google Workspace but I prefer Microsoft.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

The only maintenance required for Azure AD is to modify certain parts on Windows by using policies.

The usefulness of Azure AD depends on several factors such as our intended use, the current system, the number of users, and organizational size. While Azure AD is an excellent choice for larger companies, it may not be beneficial for individuals.

The solution acted as a source of truth for everyone internally and those we collaborated with externally. We deployed it in the cloud, so many of our users are remote and spread across the country.

The features around permissions are excellent.

The general usability of the site could be improved.

The ease of use regarding finding audit information for users could also be improved.

We want to see better integration with other Microsoft 365 products; it's a separate tool, but they all need to work together.

We've been using Azure Active Directory for about four years. 

The product is very stable; I rate it nine out of ten for stability.

Azure AD is very scalable; I rate it nine out of ten for scalability. 

The customer service needs improvement; it takes a long time to open a ticket and get it resolved.

Neutral

We previously used Google G Suite and switched to Azure AD for better security, and to match the platform our clients are using to allow easier collaboration with them.

The initial deployment was straightforward, although we initially found it challenging to understand how to use Azure AD to manage access and permissions with external parties. We carried out the setup using three staff; myself and the IT team.

We have seen an ROI with the solution; the ability to collaborate with external partners provided tremendous value. 

I evaluated Okta some years ago, so that information isn't fresh. 

I rate the product nine out of ten, and I recommend it. 

The primary use cases are task tracking and technical documentation, but I'm a project manager, so I also use the product for other jobs.

We have around 15 total users, with a couple of admins.

The boards for task tracking are a valuable feature. 

Azure AD is a turnkey solution; it provides many features for developers to use in one place.

Many of the features are outdated, so the UI and UX could be improved. 

The wiki is hard to use as it's more of a repository for technical information, but when I'm writing a PRD, I need more tools for writing. 

It would be good if the UI were more visually appealing, as it looks dated compared to other products on the market. It works fine for the dev team, but the navigation could be improved, especially for managers.

I've been using the solution for around two years. 

The stability is okay overall. 

The product is highly scalable; it's enormous and has many features.

I previously used a variety of solutions for task management, including Asana, Teamwork from Microsoft, Jira, and so on. 

I wasn't involved in the deployment; the solution was already in place when I arrived. It doesn't require any maintenance that I'm aware of. 

The product is relatively affordable, especially compared to Okta, a pricey solution.

Azure AD helped save my organization money, as it's a turnkey solution for dev management, though I can't say precisely how much as I'm not involved in the financial side.  

I rate the solution six out of ten. 

I don't use Azure AD's Verified ID, but I'm considering an identity management solution. I'm hesitant about which one to choose, and the choice is between a product from Okta and the one from Azure AD.

I use the Permission Management feature, which I look for when choosing an identity management product, but I'm still in the research phase with this feature.

Most of our staff are okay with the quality of the end-user experience within our organization, but it could be more comfortable to use for managers. It's a challenging solution to implement for every department or team because not everyone likes the UX, and it's pretty outdated when it comes to product document writing. I had an unpleasant experience when we had a power cut, and I lost two pages of documentation, as there is no autosave feature. This is important from a manager's perspective but less so for developers.

For those considering the solution, talk to your dev team to determine if it covers their needs. If so, use it, as it has many features and is very scalable.

The solution strengthened our security posture by providing fine-grained access based on attributes, standardized names, and values. Azure AD reduced our time to market for products based on improved security.

The product also improved our service desk overhead.

Azure AD positively affected our end-user experience via reduced time to market, being an identity product for our workforce.

Privileged Identity Management (PIM), managed identities, dynamic groups, and extension and security attributes are all great features.

Better integration with external governance products would be a welcome addition to Azure AD. 

We've been using the solution for four years.

The solution is stable but can be improved, especially regarding response times.

Azure AD is a cloud-based solution operating from a worldwide tenant, so scalability isn't an issue, especially from an identity perspective. We have 300,000 total end users. 

We have yet to interact with technical support, so I can't speak to that.

We previously used standard AD. 

The setup is mixed; the startup is fast, but configuring requires the knowledge of a consultant or technical resource. Basic deployment can be completed in a day, but our greenfield deployment took a relatively long time as we're a large organization. A greenfield deployment should take at most two weeks, but implementing Azure AD into a functional environment is a project unto itself. It could take months, depending on the use cases.

Regarding maintenance, we're a global organization, and each feature has its own operating team. At our scale, a group of 25 is responsible for managing and maintaining the identity part of the solution.

The pricing depends on the use case and can be negotiated based on volume. 

I rate the solution eight out of ten. 

My advice to others evaluating the product is to do good due diligence beforehand to determine a clear set of requirements, as with any identity tool or access management solution.  

We use Azure AD to implement Conditional Access policies and privileged access management.

There are plenty of benefits. First, as we had Microsoft AD on-premises, it was very easy to configure Azure AD. We are using the password hash sync for authentication, so authentication on the cloud is very seamless when users use applications on the cloud. That is very important.

Also, with the help of sign-in logs, we are getting information about every application, such as where a user is trying to log in and from which device, making things very crystal clear. We only get this type of transparency and accuracy only from Azure AD.

We use the Conditional Access feature to fine-tune access. We implement a lot of access policies. For example, we want to get rid of client machines with Windows XP and some legacy applications, so we created access policies to prevent logins from those devices and those applications. We have also created policies to prevent logins from certain areas around the world. These abilities are very helpful in preventing phishing and scams.

In addition, there are so many tasks and activities that are automated in Azure AD. For example, we have enabled the password reset self-service so that users can reset a password themselves and log in to their accounts. That is one way it saves time for our help desk team. It no longer requires the help desk. From an administrative perspective, it's very convenient for us to manage and maintain the users of the organization. Azure AD is saving us 10 to 12 hours per week, and that's for just one person who would otherwise be responsible for resetting passwords.

The solution has also prevented so many potential cyber attacks, and that has saved us money. And by saving man-hours, we have saved money. Thirdly, we have been able to reduce manpower. I would estimate it has saved us 20 percent in terms of costs.

Another benefit is that, from a user perspective, it is very smooth and easy to sign in to all the Microsoft applications with the Azure AD sign-in. The UI is very intuitive for Microsoft accounts, so it's very easy for them to log in. We also have single sign-on enabled for desktops, so whenever a user signs in to an application on their machine, they don't need to sign in again and again. With the help of the same token, all other applications can be opened easily.

Two very important features in terms of security are governance and compliance through the Conditional Access policies and Azure Log Analytics.

Also, Azure AD provides a single pane of glass for managing user access.

I mainly work with the Microsoft Security portal so I can get access and privileges to maintain all the security policies, including Conditional Access policies and privilege access management for just-in-time access, as well as Azure AD sign-in logs. These factors are very important.

When it comes to managing identity, we have E5 licenses. We are using every application from Office 365, so it is very easy for us to manage identity with the help of all those applications. We are also using third-party applications that are integrated with Azure AD and that makes access management easy.

From an admin perspective, I would like to see improvement in the Microsoft Graph API.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for six to seven years.

There are some bugs that we find monthly or quarterly, but all the bugs are fixed by Microsoft.

It is scalable.

We have it deployed in Europe and there are about 15,000 users.

I received good technical support when syncing on-premises users to Azure AD. It was very smooth. But for help with Conditional Access, I got poor support.

Neutral

We had on-premises AD and then we introduced Azure AD. We synced all the users from on-premises to Azure AD. Then, with Office 365, we installed Exchange Online and Teams. For single sign-on we have ADFS [Active Directory Federation Services] on-premises, but now we are migrating our applications to Azure AD SSO for single sign-on.

The initial deployment was very straightforward. It only took a day to deploy. The plan was first to get information about our on-premises Active Directory users, computers, and groups, and then we had to determine how many licenses and which types of licenses we needed for those. We also had to think about which type of authentication method we were going to use.

Our deployment involved three to four people.

Maintenance is just checking for updates.

Personally, I feel Microsoft is very costly compared to other products. That is also what management is thinking. But when we consider security and support, Microsoft is better than any other product. It is somehow justified, but I feel it is costly.

I have worked with Okta but for single sign-on only. It does not provide all the features or meet all our demands.

If you want secure data and secure identities, go for Microsoft Azure AD.