Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

My primary use case is Azure SSO. Then, it is a hybrid synchronization of users and computers, and also for SCIM provisioning.

Using this product has helped improve our security posture. I don't handle security directly, but I know that our security team was able to identify logs containing erratic behavior, such as logins that were not authentic. They were able to identify and solve those problems.

This solution has improved our end-user experience a lot because previously, users had to remember different passwords for different applications. Sometimes, the integration with on-premises AD was a little bit difficult over the firewall. However, with Azure, that integration has become seamless. The users are also happy with the additional security afforded by multifactor authentication.

One of the benefits that we get from this solution is the Azure hybrid join, where my presence of the domains is both on-premises and on the cloud. It has allowed us to manage the client machines from the cloud, as well as from the on-premises solution. We are currently building upon our cloud usage so that we can manage more from the Azure instance directly.

Our cloud presence is growing because most people are working from home, so the management of end-users and workstations is becoming a little challenging with the current on-premises system. Having cloud-based management helps us to manage end-users and workstations better. This is because, with an on-premises solution, you need a VPN connection to manage it. Not all users have a VPN but for a cloud-based solution, you just need the internet and almost everyone now has an internet connection.

The most valuable feature is the single sign-on, which allows any application that is SAML or OAuth compatible to use Azure as an identity provider for seamless sign-in.

I like the SCIM provisioning, where Azure is the single database and it can push to Google cloud, as well as Oracle cloud. This means that the user directory is synchronized across platforms, so if I am managing Azure AD then my other platforms are also managed.

In a hybrid deployment, when we update the UPN or email address of a user who has license assigned, 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. Essentially, if it's a hybrid sync then it should happen automatically and we shouldn't have to do anything manually.

Azure AD DS allows only one instance in a particular tenant, which is something that could be improved. There are people that want to have AD DS on a per-subscription basis.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for more than three years.

Other than a few global outages, I have not seen any specific outages to the tenant that we use. In the typical case, we haven't faced any issues.

The scalability has been good. For the infrastructure that we have developed, there were no issues. We have nothing in terms of abnormal outages or any abnormal spikes that we have observed. Overall, scalability-wise, we are happy with it.

We have thousands of users on the Azure platform. The entire organization is on Azure AD, and everyone has a different, specific role assigned to them. Some people are using the database, whereas somebody else is using other infrastructure service, and the same is true for all of the different features. We have different teams using different features and I am part of managing identities, which involves using Azure AD and its associated features.

The support from Microsoft is very good. I would rate them a nine out of ten. They are responsive and very knowledgeable.

Prior to Azure AD, we used on-premises Active Directory.

The initial setup was not very complicated because there are very good articles online, published by Microsoft. They give detailed steps on the process and including what challenges you may face. In our setup, the articles online were sufficient but suppose you run into any issues, you simply reach out to Microsoft for support.

Taking the purchases, planning, and everything else into account, it took between three and four months to complete the deployment.

Our in-house team was responsible for deployment. In a few cases, we reached out to Microsoft for support.

We have not evaluated other options. The reason is that the integration between Azure AD and on-premises Active Directory is seamless and easy. Both solutions are by Microsoft.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Azure AD is to consider the size of their environment. If it's a large on-premises environment then you should consider a hybrid model, but if it's a small environment then it's easy to move to the Azure cloud model directly. If it's a small environment then Azure AD is also available on a free license. This is how I would suggest you start looking at having a cloud presence.

Azure AD is easy to integrate and manage, and it will reduce your capital cost a lot.

In summary, this is a good product but there is always scope for improvement.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Identity verification would be the number one use case. It also factors into mobile device management for devices that aren't registered to the company. We use MFA, and the Authenticator app is a component for multifactor authentication. So, that's why we use it.

You can set policies to specify where users will have to use the Authenticator app to log into particular applications. 

It makes all junior users accountable. There is no excuse for someone else logging into anything because of the multifactor authentication and Authenticator app. You have to verify your identity to log in to specific applications that contain confidential information, especially in a HIPAA-compliant environment.

It enhances security, especially for unregistered devices. It 1000% has security features that help to improve our security posture. It could be irritating at times, but improving the security posture is exactly what the Authenticator app does.

For the end users, it can be confusing if they have worked for another company that had the Authenticator app. It is tricky if they have already had the Authenticator app and then work somewhere else. If they have to download it again and use it again on their phone, it is something that gets complicated. I know how to get through it. They just need to uninstall and reinstall the application, but for them, sometimes, it is confusing. You can have the Authenticator app for multiple services on your phone, and that's what drives them crazy. They get a code and say "I'm using the code for the Authenticator app, but I can't get in." I tell them that it is because they already had it in, but it is for something else. They now have to add. They don't like that at all. You could be on the phone for 45 minutes trying to figure out what their problem is because they don't.

Instead of authenticating by getting a passcode or answering the phone, fingerprint identification should be added to the Authenticator app. Currently, with the Authenticator app, you have to reply to the email, enter a code, or answer the phone. It can just call my phone and then I just press the button to verify that this is me.

I have been using this solution for at least six years. 

It is very stable. If the Authenticator app is set up, you're not going to get into anything without it. It definitely works.

I'm not aware of any bugs or glitches. We usually run updates for the whole environment at a time. I'm not familiar with having run into specific bugs with the Authenticator app. I haven't had any problems over the years.

I've managed over a hundred thousand users in total, but right now, there are about 10,000 users. We are HIPAA compliant. So, everybody has to use it for everything. They have to use it to log into everything under the Office 365 environment, but in other companies or other places where I worked, it was only for specific applications. So, that's based on company needs.

I never had to call technical support for this.

We were using normal MFA, which is similar. The Authenticator app is for mobile devices per se, but normal multifactor authentication doesn't have to focus on mobile devices. You can try and log in to, for example, SharePoint Online, and if MFA is activated, you would have to just scroll to your email and click, "Hey. Yeah, this is me." The Authenticator app is just for mobile devices in my eyes.

It is straightforward for the admins, but end users hate it. On the admin side, it takes 20 minutes at the most.

The Authenticator app wants you to have all your prerequisites designed for whatever environment you want. If you're going through Azure, you can pick the particular applications on which you want this. You can also pick the users for whom you want it to be effective. You can pick the type of ways they authenticate through the Authenticator app. Those are the simple steps.

One person is enough for its deployment and maintenance. I do that. That's not even a role. It depends on who you are, but that's not a role. That's not something for which I would employ a person. I wouldn't employ an IT person or an administrator just to focus on this.

I don't pay for it. Going by how I feel, I see the prices for any MFA solution going down because the more different alternatives there are, the cheaper things should be. Microsoft Authenticator app would be the preferred application, but there are too many ways to implement MFA. I don't know how much it cost, but the price should go down.

It is pretty seamless for the end users, besides the end users having an issue setting up at times.

It is a seamless transition. It is straightforward on the admin side to set up. As a consultant, my advice to any company is that when it comes to big changes, manage end-user pain or frustration. Communicate with the end users and let them know what's going to happen. Explain to them that they're going to be frustrated, but explain why this exists. 

I understand why it exists. So, it doesn't bother me, but our end users just hate it. I understand that they don't like it. Nobody likes it, but it is needed. You are never going to meet an end user who likes any type of MFA, but you need to be more clear about its purpose.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The most valuable features are

• authentication
• authorization
• two-factor authentication
• I have never had a failure.

It's multi-tenant, residing in multiple locations. 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.

It also has a variable extension, which is an added value because in Active Directory, if you have to do a schema, you have to make changes on multiple Active Directory instances. But here, as the extension attribute can be done from the application level, it helps you provide the provisioning. 

Another good reason for using Azure AD is that it can connect with other SaaS services. It also has SSOs, which, along with the MFA, makes authentication much easier.

One area where it can improve is connectivity with other systems. Not all systems are connected and you have to do coding to establish a point of connectivity. It supports certain vendors and it supports certain protocols. It is limited in many other aspects at the attribute level.

Also, some of the provisioning filters are not capable enough. You cannot do a date filter on the provisioning.

Perhaps they could also have easy protocols to create the accounts. Instead of just a file upload, they should have an easy connector to do the provisioning part.

I work in a service-based company and I've been using Azure Active Directory for my customers for around 10 years now.

From 2020 to 2022, there have not been more than two or three outages, and none was more than three to four hours long. And those outages may not have occurred the whole time in the entire environment, they may only have been in certain places.

When there is an outage, the end-user experience is affected, but that happens in AWS and in Azure. It happens with any SaaS product. Overall, it has not affected the end-user experience, but when there is an outage in Azure, it will have an impact on our environment.

It's scalable, but if you need more than one region, you have to pay for it. You have to think about how you want the service to be available.

The technical support is good.

Positive

The initial setup is easy and straightforward. Setting up Azure AD doesn't require you to do anything. You buy the product from Microsoft and Microsoft sets it up for you. You just establish the connectivity to it. It does not take more than a week or two to complete the setup.

The number of employees you require for deployment and maintenance of the solution depends on how you have set up your provisioning platform. If it is automated, you can have one resource. If you're still in manual, then it depends on the volume of the workload.

Licenses are based on the usage. There is no cap. It's based on the number of users we provision.

A SaaS solution is the best product. You get it at a better price and you have many Windows-based services that are included for free.

I would definitely recommend using Azure AD. Many companies are moving from other vendors to Azure because every company uses Office 365 anyway for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. As soon as you use that, by default, you get an Azure AD account. If you have an Azure AD account, you definitely have features to use. Why would you want to go for another product?

Overall, I haven't seen any major issues with the product.

We use the Authenticator app on our mobile phones and to authenticate for Office 365. We also provide consulting services and recommend Microsoft Authenticator to clients looking for an MFA solution.

The solution improved our and our clients' security; end users are more confident knowing that their information is confidential. Strategic users, VIPs, and admins are protected from potential attacks because their authentication goes through Microsoft Authenticator.

The product has significantly increased our security maturity and gives us comfort knowing we have security in a good, affordable solution.

We have a history of all our authentications and excellent integration with the Microsoft solutions we use at our company. It runs smoothly in Windows and macOS.

I want to see more features to improve security, such as integrated user behavior analysis.

We have been using the solution for two years. 

The tool is stable, we haven't had any issues regarding stability. 

Scaling is easy as the product is hosted in the cloud; it's a robust and trustworthy solution.

Currently, we have 100 end users in our company, and we have some clients with around 1000 end users of Microsoft Authenticator.

We never needed to contact technical support as we have never had any problems, so I can't comment on that.

We previously used JumpCloud before migrating to Microsoft Authenticator, and we did that because it's more affordable and has better integration with Office 365 and the other Microsoft products we implement.

The setup was straightforward. We made an implementation plan and transitioned from using MFA via email and SMS messages to using Microsoft Authenticator.

Our security team is responsible for all our security solutions, and they take care of the maintenance, which I understand to be relatively light.

We have a Security Operation Center in our company. Another company using the same solution without a team like ours may require several hours a month to manage the solution.

We implemented it in-house since we are a consulting services company.

We think the solution is excellent and provides a return on our investment.

I would advise implementing the solution to VIPs and admins; it's affordable, effective, and efficient. I would say training staff on properly using the tool is also essential.

We decided to go straight for the Microsoft offering since we use Office 365.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

When we deployed Microsoft Authenticator for our clients, we initially had some requests for training. We delivered the training, and the end users could adapt to it; the transition was smooth.

The solution is extensively used within our organization.

We use it for authentication. Where we have cloud services, it syncs with Active Directory on-prem. We have about 1,800 people using it.

It's a very scalable solution.

The ability to manage and authenticate against on-premises solutions would be beneficial.

We have been using Azure Active Directory for about four years.

We have had very little requirement for technical support. It's a cloud solution.

We didn't use a different solution. We brought this in when we went into what was called Microsoft 365 in those days.

The setup was pretty straightforward. In terms of maintaining it, we have a team of six infrastructure engineers, and Azure AD is just one of the systems that they manage.

We did it in-house.

It's included within a wider bundle of Microsoft 365 products.

You need to make sure you've thought through how you're going to deal with your on-prem applications because having a hybrid solution like ours brings some challenges.

Ultimately, we will move completely into Azure AD, but we have a lot of on-prem applications and you can't use Azure Active Directory with them. Until we remove those applications and make things cloud-only, we will still need a hybrid solution.

Microsoft Authenticator is the tool provided to assure that we are using the Microsoft product in the correct way, from the Microsoft point of view.

It's two-factor authentication. I personally use several of them, from Google to Microsoft Authenticator to others. It's a solution that works.

The solution is stable. 

The product is easy to install and quick to deploy.

The solution is secure.

It offers good Microsoft integration capabilities. 

For the moment, I don't have any complaints. 

The pricing is okay, however, it could always be better in the future.

It is a stable, reliable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

In terms of scalability, we don't have complaints about this from the users of this kind of solution.

Several people in our company use the product. I am unsure of the exact number. 

When we have problems, we don't go to Microsoft; we complain internally to a group that is responsible for keeping this working. I can't speak to how Microsoft's support is. I've never directly interacted with them.

Positive

I also use Google Authenticator.

I need to use different services to log on. Microsoft promotes its own solutions. For my bank, for instance, I have a solution imposed by my bank. For Google, I have Google Authenticator. For Microsoft Plus. I have Microsoft Authenticator. For our VPN, we use FortiGate, the authenticator.

The installation is easy. You can do the installation on mobile phones and it can be installed on the web. It's not a problem.

The deployment is fast and only takes about two minutes. It's supposed to be done by the end-user.

I have done the implementation myself. I did not need the assistance of any integrators or consultants.

I don't pay a separate licensing fee. It's already included in the service we buy from Microsoft.

I'd rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Azure Active Directory for the user rules, identity management, user rule validation, authorization, and authentication.

The most valuable features of this solution are definitely the authorization and authentication, and the rule-based user validation.

Azure Active Directory is quite easy to use.

We are quite happy with the Azure Active Directory services we are utilizing.

Definitely, the price could be lower. When we moved from AWS to Azure, we started paying more. The licensing fees were more expensive.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for the last 10 to 15 years.

Azure Active Directory is quite stable.

Azure Active Directory is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 100 users in our company.

We have plans to increase our usage.

Technical support is quite good, they are awesome.

Previously, we were using an open-source solution, but we are happy with the Azure Active Directory solution.

We received the migrations as a direct value add because we are a part of Microsoft MSP.

The Azure Active Directory migration took ten days to complete.

This solution is maintained by a team of three to four people.

We had assistance from a consultant.

We pay an annual subscription fee.

I would recommend this solution to others who are considering using it.

I would rate Azure Active Directory a ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution with our customers that use it.

We're using the solution for a lot of all different things. We have used it to support. We have something called BankID here in Sweden, where you identify yourself to your internet bank and lots of other areas and we have based our connection to BankID using Active Directory. 

It's user-friendly and easy to understand. It's doing work great so far.

We're mainly using templates and using the APIs rather than using the GUI. That's the easiest way to do things.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

The solution scales well.

It's a stable product for the most part.

Something that can be improved is their user interface. It needs to be better.

It's always a good idea to have some kind of expert GUI that you can turn on/off. There are a lot of settings to work through. If you are not that experienced, then maybe you might not want to use them. 

There should be an easier way to set up the regular things and then switch to a more expert kind of wizard to set things up.

We've used the product for many, many years at this point. 

The solution is stable. There aren't issues with bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance is good.

We can scale the solution if we need to.

It is my understanding that support is not as good as Cloudflare, however, I haven't been using the support that much for Azure. There is lots of information out there on the internet. If you search, you don't need to contact support often.

The solution has been straightforward to set up. It's simple. It's not overly complex. 

We have a handful of people involved in the initial setup. You don't need very many. They are mostly specialists and technicians. 

While I don't directly deal with tracking ROI, our customers are satisfied with the way we are billing them when we're setting things up. 

The pricing seems to be fine for our clients.

We are an integrator. We are using the latest versions of the product.

New users should know that it's quite easy to set up a sandbox environment and a free account in order to play with it. It's fairly easy to kind of set up the proof of concept.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.