Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

I work on it to investigate it. I work at a cybersecurity company, so I focus on how the product behaves, particularly how Microsoft Entra ID behaves with group permissions and such.

We work with Microsoft because we're also a security company, so we scan Microsoft Entra ID and then monitor what happens regarding defending against token theft and nation-state attacks.

We are partners with Microsoft. We don't sell Microsoft products; we sell our own product, but we integrate it with Microsoft.

It's simple to create groups or accounts and to add users. There are several options for dynamic groups.

Microsoft Entra ID influences our zero trust model because we need to make sure that we give the right user permissions.

To improve Microsoft Entra ID, it should be made simpler because there is a lot of stuff to do in the platform, which could be reduced to fewer buttons.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for two years.

Microsoft Entra ID is pretty stable.

I don't know about scalability, but I assume it is suitable because it is used for huge organizations.

Customer service and technical support for Microsoft Entra ID are very good because I open many tickets with the support and get straight answers. If I don't get an answer, they update me all the time that they will provide an answer, and they work on that.

Positive

Microsoft Entra ID is pretty easy to deploy. The speed of deploying Microsoft Entra ID depends on the organization and its structure, but building new users is very simple.

There is a return on investment when using this platform, though I am uncertain about the specifics.

I haven't observed any problems or changes in the frequency and nature of identity-related security incidents after using Microsoft Entra ID in my company.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID a nine out of ten.

I use Microsoft Entra ID to manage and reset user passwords and set their requirements so they can access the environment.

The Entra portal offers a unified interface to oversee user access. Through the Entra portal, I can access my resources. I utilize the quick user and quick group features to assign users to roles according to their permissions, missions, and development tasks. This involves our EBAC and RBAC systems, assigning tools, and linking them to functions required for executing tasks. After completing these assignments, we place these users in groups and grant them access to specific resource environments, aligned with their designated tasks within those environments.

The Entra portal does not affect the consistency of the security policies that we apply.

The administration center for managing identity and accessing tasks within our organization operates according to the established protocols and procedures prior to its implementation. We utilize account provisioning, RBAC, authentication, authorization, password management, security, and incident management. These are all components that we have implemented to facilitate access and development within our environment.

There are certain things that have helped improve our organization. First, security. With Entra ID, we have been able to implement SSO capabilities for our applications and most resources in our environment. This means that we can use a single credential to access all of our resources, which makes it more difficult for hackers to gain access. It also makes it easier for our users to sign in to resources without having to remember multiple passwords. Second, Entra ID allows us to implement multiple authentication factors. This adds an additional layer of security by requiring users to verify their identity in more than one way. For example, they might need to enter their password and then also provide a code from their phone. This makes it much more difficult for unauthorized users to gain access to our systems. Entra ID also makes it possible to define roles and permissions based on each user's needs. This allows us to grant users only the access they need to do their jobs, which helps to protect our data and systems. Finally, Entra ID allows us to implement conditional access controls. This means that we can restrict access to resources based on factors such as the user's location or the device they are using. This helps to protect our data from unauthorized access, even if a user's password is compromised.

Conditional access is a way to make decisions about enforcing security policies. These policies are made up of "if this, then that" statements. For example, if a user wants to access a resource, they might be required to complete a certain action, such as multi-factor authentication. If a user tries to sign in from a risky location, the system will either block them or require them to complete an additional layer of authentication.

The conditional access feature does not compromise the robustness of the zero-trust strategy, which is a good thing. I have configured it in my environment based on primary monitoring. We have certain locations that we do not trust users from. If a user tries to sign in from one of these locations, which the system automatically detects, they will be required to complete an additional layer of authentication. With zero trust, we do not trust anyone by default. Anyone trying to access our environment externally must be verified.

We use conditional access with Endpoint Manager. When configuring conditional access, we consider factors such as the user's location, device, and country. These are the things that we put in place when configuring the policy. We create users, put them in a group, and then decide to apply conditional access to that group. So, this particular group has been configured under conditional access. This means that no matter where they are, what device they use, or what activity they want to perform in the environment, they will be required to meet certain conditions that have been configured in the conditional access policy.

We use Verified ID to onboard remote users. SSO is configured for this purpose so that users do not have to remember multiple IDs, passwords, or usernames. This can be tedious when logging in to multiple applications. Once SSO is configured for our users, we also configure self-service password reset so that they can reset their passwords themselves if they forget them. With SSO, users only need to remember one credential, their Verified ID. When they log in to an application, such as Zoom, they are redirected to the identity trust provider, which is Entra ID. Entra ID requires a sign-in. Once the user enters their Verified ID into Entra ID, they are redirected back to Zoom and are issued an access token, which allows them to access Zoom. In this way, users can automatically access all other applications in the system that they are required to use to carry out their day-to-day tasks in the company.

Verified ID helps protect the privacy and identity data of our users. Data access management is all about the user's identity. The three main components of data access management are identity, authentication, and authorization. Identity access management is about protecting user information and ensuring that they only have access to the resources they need to perform their jobs. Verified ID is an additional layer of security that helps to ensure that users only have access to the right applications and resources. It does this by verifying the user's identity and ensuring that the resources are being accessed by the right person. Verified ID also uses certificates to confirm the trust and security of the system.

Permission management helps with visibility and control over who has access to what resources in the environment. For example, an HR manager should only have access to HR resources. To achieve this, we put users into groups based on their job function, such as the HR department. We then grant permissions to these groups to access the resources they need. This way, no one in the HR department can access resources that are meant for the financial department. Permission management helps to reduce unauthorized access to resources and prevent data breaches. Before we grant access to resources, we perform a role-based access control analysis to determine the permissions that each role needs.

Entra ID has helped us save a lot of time by streamlining our security access process. From time to time we conduct an access review to ensure that only the right people have access to the environment and resources.

Entra ID operates on multiple platforms and devices, which reduces the time spent on manual tasks and increases productivity. Its ability to integrate across our centers worldwide, providing accessibility, has saved us money.

Entra ID has improved the user experience and performance. It has enhanced performance by saving users time from having to log into so many applications, systems, or plug-ins. Now, they can log in using their Entra ID. It has also helped with security by enabling multi-factor authentication, which has cut down on attempted hacks. Entra ID has also made enrollment easier for users.

The valuable features I use daily are enterprise application, conditional access, identity governance, password monitoring, and a password reset.

The downside of using a single password to access the entire system is that if those credentials are compromised, the hacker will have full access. It would be more beneficial if Entra ID could be completely passwordless.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for six years.

Entra ID is stable. We have never had stability issues.

Entra ID is scalable.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID a ten out of ten. I enjoy using Entra ID and I see the benefits of using it.

No maintenance is required, except for occasional log reviews.

We are using Microsoft Entra ID every day for SSO authentication for our end users. We sync local active directories with Entra, register applications for SSO, assign licenses with dynamic security groups, and utilize it for enterprise applications.

The solution has improved our application security because we can deploy app registrations on our enterprise applications. We could securely enable MFA access on most of our applications.

Entra ID's ability to sync with the local Active Directory provides redundancy, allowing authentication via cloud features even if the local Active Directory faces issues. The SSO features with app registrations are also crucial, as we use Azure globally, allowing role and permission assignments directly from Entra.

I have used Entra ID for eight to 10 years.

The stability of Microsoft Entra ID is excellent. We haven't experienced any issues.

At the moment, it accommodates all our needs, and we have not encountered any scalability issues.

Previously, we used local Active Directory, specifically an on-premises solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID 10 out of 10. It's a good product that's easy to deploy and manage, with no significant learning curve to adapt to various features.

We use Entra for things like, multifactor authentication, user backups, registrations, and other identity management tasks. 

We use Entra ID for 3,000 users, and there are multiple third parties integrated into it. The solution is part of the fabric of our company, so it's essential. 

The solution has saved IT administrators and HR staff time. We build Power BI dashboards on top of it to provide some insights. We're feeding all of the users into that. We've built an aggregator that takes all the sign-in logs and all of that data available in Entra and surfaces it through Power BI, so we can reuse it in different parts of our organization. It makes sense to build the dashboards in Power BI, so that it's centrally available and part of a bigger data set. 

Entra's license management features have saved us money because we can allocate licenses to groups and users. We've built reports on top of that license group user information. We can see how many licenses are being used and whether it's over-provisioned. 

I like Entra's ability to integrate the Active Directory with third-party solutions. It's straightforward. I like the ability to define third-party systems and make the AD the primary identity provider.

Entra offers a single pane of glass that helps us keep our security policies consistent. It helps to drive behavior through security and role-based groups. We use privileged identity management for elevated roles in security groups. 

I started using Entra when it was still called Azure Active Directory. It has been about 10 years. 

No one would say Entra isn't scalable. Some of our deployments were for large UK government projects. One of the largest Azure Active Directory deployments was at NHS which has 2.4 million users. We run and manage the identity part of that service for the NHS and a bunch of other things. 

We're involved with some massive deployments of that critical national infrastructure, including the governance and compliance around it. That's tens of thousands of endpoints. It's the NHS, so that includes people's local doctors, hospitals, and people in the supply chain. 

I rate Microsoft support five out of 10. It's just okay. 

Neutral

Entra isn't too difficult to set up. We follow the Microsoft cloud adoption framework. There's a phase that involves aligning with best practices and making sure it's secured appropriately.

Entra includes things like multifactor authentication, conditional access, etc., so I think it justifies the cost. 

Entra is fairly priced. We get it through an E5 license, so it isn't an issue.  It also costs nothing to our customers. 

I rate Microsoft Entra ID 10 out of 10. I would recommend it if you're using Microsoft or Azure. If not, I would still think about it because creating a tenant is free. There's only a licensing cost once you start putting users on it. 

The use cases typically include external customer authentication, which we do, and by customers, I mean our hotel partners. There is basic user authentication and the ability to isolate those users based on a particular security environment, whether they are coming from a PCI environment, lab environment, corp environment, etcetera. Each of those has to pass through specific security, so everything that your Active Directory or Windows AD is solving on-premise is essentially the use case, except for the external customer situation which was the one thing that made me look at Entra ID. Unfortunately, the way Entra ID works created a major security issue that I cannot go into regarding guest users for our tenant. We are now trying to fix that.

We tried to stand it up as a PoC, and we went back and forth with Microsoft on it for a few months. We never got to a resolution because there is an architectural design issue with the service itself, and Microsoft is not going to change their service for us. We tried to use it, and then we gave up, killed it, and went back to the original plan, which was to use Okta. Our goal is to eventually completely get out of the Microsoft Identity ecosystem and move over to Okta.

We do not use Entra ID anymore. We have moved away from Entra ID. We could not justify it from a business standpoint. That is the crux of the situation. We now have a solution that can meet all of our business needs.

Microsoft Entra does not provide a single pane of glass for managing user access. It is not fully featured yet. There are some things within that Entra ID administrator portal, but it is not as robust as simply going to Entra ID service and then going to different features that it has to maintain identities. It is not even a single pane of glass if you look at how Microsoft does identity between Entra ID, Azure Resource Manager, and M365 itself. I know that they are trying to fix the situation between Entra ID and M365, but the subscription-level identity access controls need to be moved out of the subscription level and need to be globally managed from the identity provider. I am sure there was a design choice for that, but it just does not work when you are a company of our scale because we just cannot keep managing individual resources, so we would like to centralize the identity system.

I used Microsoft Entra Permission Management in a very specific scenario but because we are a hybrid environment, we often found ourselves fighting with cloud groups. We moved a lot of security groups into Entra from our Windows AD environment. We have a lot of stuff that has been built upon that for the past 20 years. Not being able to have Windows Active Directory security groups that are synced to Entra ID to control access to resources was a big pain for us. We would have had to create a cloud group and then add all the members of those on-prem security groups to it, so we did not even bother with it. When you have a company of our age and our size and you have nested security groups, there is a lot of linkage there, and it is not attainable. 

It is great for mom-and-pop shops or small businesses that are truly coming into the enterprise ecosystem and that have not come from a legacy environment. Current statistics show that 99% of the world that was in an Active Directory authentication environment is still in the Active Directory or Windows AD authentication environment and just supplementing Okta, so we are not doing anything new. A previous Microsoft employee that I talked to said that in the last decade, there has literally been only one customer to get fully off their hybrid environment and go fully into Entra, and it took them over ten years. Therefore, Microsoft needs to focus more on Entra and fix not only the design flaws but also address a lot of the customers' needs. It has a lot of potential specifically around taking business from IIQ for some of those UAR workflows, identity workflows, etcetera. Their biggest competitor is Okta, and Okta is currently the better solution.

We have been trying not to use the solution. It is used for a specific use case, which is around authenticating M365, and we are trying to see if we can get out of using it, but that is only because our environment is extremely complicated. Entra ID is not battle-tested or stable enough to support a business of our size. There are some design issues specifically around support for legacy services. We used to be part of Microsoft, so we have about 15-year-old services sitting in our data center that still need to use legacy LDAP authentication. The way we currently have the environment set up is for one very specific domain. I am using a domain for specific context here to keep it simple. We have 36 Active Directory domains, and that does not include the child. We follow the least privileged access model. Our environment currently consists of using AD Connect to synchronize objects from our corporate tenant into Entra ID, and then from Entra ID, we wanted to stand up Azure domain services as a possibility for retiring legacy LDAP services. The issue with Entra ID specifically is that the way it replicates objects out of its database into the Azure domain services Active Directory tenant or Active Directory service is that it uses the display name. This is a bad practice, and it has been known as a bad practice even by Microsoft over the past decade, so the design is not good. The issue with replicating based on the display name is that when you are coming from an environment that uses a least privilege access model, where you want to obfuscate the type of security account being used by hiding it behind a generic display name, instead of myusername_da, myusername_ao, etcetera, to have an idea of what accounts are being used when they are logging in, it is unable to reconcile that object when it creates a new domain. If they all have the same DM, you end up with quadruplicates of each user identity that was replicated to it from the directory. Those quadruplicates or their same account names, as well as the display names within the cloud domain services directory, have a unique identifier with the original account name attached. What that does is that it not only breaks that LDAP legacy authentication, but it also drives up the cost for your customers because you are paying for each additional seat, additional user objects that are created, or additional users. You also cannot tell any of those accounts apart unless you dive deep into the user object to peel back what type of account that is to map it back to what came from on-prem itself, so the service is completely useless. What we have done in our case is that we do not really need Entra ID. We have Okta, so we use an Okta LDAP endpoint. That does exactly what we need in using SCIM, which is the technology that is able to take identities from multiple dynamic providers and merge them together into a single record. It is able to act as an official LDAP endpoint for the business, so legacy apps work. We do not have a problem. Microsoft could learn from that.

Entra should allow for external MFA providers rather than forcing you into a walled garden and the Microsoft ecosystem. Flexibility is a big thing, especially for companies of our size. A big issue for us is that we want the identity to be in Entra for sure, but we want it to come from Okta. We want the authentication and stuff to work, but we want Okta to control the PIM rules. We want it to do the MFA and all those things, but Entra does not play nice with others. Okta has engineered some ways to get it done, but it is not as full-featured as we would like it to be. Microsoft should do what they do with some other partners such as Nerdio and Jamf where they have their own version of a service, but they are still partnering with those other companies to at least add options on the market.

Fully customizable UARs and Azure Secure Identity Workflows would be great. Currently, you can do it if you cobble together a bunch of Azure functions and use Sentinel. If you are sending logs to Sentinel and are able to match patterns and run automation based on that, it would be great. They can help with a solution that abstracts away a lot of that complexity across multiple services into exactly what IIQ does. I could definitely foresee Entra being the choice for identity for pretty much all cloud providers if they can focus on the areas that SailPoint's IIQ does. A big pain point for a business of our size by being in Okta is that we do not have the same workflows that we have between IIQ and AD. With the amount of data that our company generates, we wanted Sentinel. I had their security department onboard, and it was going to be millions a month just to use Sentinel, but we could not use it, so we decided to leverage Splunk and a few other SIEM providers. 

They should also stop changing the name of the product.

We used it for a few months.

Microsoft's support has been so bad when we have had issues in Azure that we recently poured 24 million dollars out of our spend for Azure, cut our unified support agreement with them, and sent it to somebody else. I would rate their support a zero out of ten. It is so bad. We probably never had a support engineer solve our problem. Usually, I or somebody else in the company has to reverse engineer service to try and find the solution. The things that we find are not even documented on the Microsoft site. The second way is to pull the information from the blog of some old guy who found the same issue and ended up solving it. 

People on the support side at Microsoft just read from a runbook and then send us to another part of the world where they ask us the same question, read from a runbook, and then we repeat ourselves, so we sent all that support to Insight. They were happy, and they were way cheaper. It only cost us less than four million. It was significantly cheaper. Our leadership is like, "Wow! IT actually saved us money this year."

Negative

We were using Active Directory, and we will never get off AD. There is too much legacy stuff for us to even bother getting off AD. It is a very mature product. It would be crazy for us to leave Windows Active Directory for something else, even Okta. There are core things that we need to function a certain way, so Entra ID just does not make sense. Entra sometimes even has access issues and replication delays with identity and adding objects to a new access control list within its platform or service.

We are not a typical company. We used to be part of Microsoft, so a lot of things that we inherited were very complex, and we also do things differently. For the old NT systems and SMB shares, we are still using Active Directory groups, and they work just fine. We have automation built around membership. We control the membership of those groups, the auditing of those groups, and everything else, so it does not make sense. It would be too much work to move us over to Entra ID.

I was involved in its deployment. It was complex, but that was not Microsoft's fault. That was our fault because we have a very complicated environment.

We have a hybrid environment. We were in IBM, but we pulled back. We have Oracle's cloud platform, and we have AWS as well as Azure, but 99% of our cloud workloads are all in AWS.

When we initially started, Microsoft was not there. The initial implementation strategy was to synchronize the Windows Active Directory corporate domain to Entra ID. That way, we had the identities and we could use the same AD connector to synchronize the AD distribution lists. The other side was the mailbox. 

We did not take the help of any integrator. It does not require much. You stand up your servers. You have a staging host with its own database, and then a sync host with its own database. You then hook them up and make sure you have all the permissions in your previous tenant.

Microsoft puts MSOL accounts in some default directory. You should be able to tell the agent to put the MSOL accounts in a more secure OU. For instance, the original recommendation, which has changed recently, when we set up the service was to use an enterprise admin to set up the agent, which generates a bunch of MSOL accounts. Those MSOL accounts ended up in our all users' organizations. When you have a company of our size, that is not the only MSOL account that exists in the directory, and it is really hard to tell those apart, so we have to look through the logs, see which MSOL account it is using, and move it into the proper OU for the on-prem domain. It would be nice if you could determine where that goes at the time of creation.

We were able to reclaim the money that we did not spend with Microsoft and spend it elsewhere. It is technically an ROI, an investment of our time in negotiating other deals.

Microsoft is so expensive. You know it is expensive when a Fortune 100 company like ours is complaining about the cost. That has been a big thing for me. When I really want to use an Azure service, it is very hard for me to justify the cost, especially with Microsoft support. 

To those evaluating Entra ID, I would say that if you are on Windows Active Directory, just stay on it.

I would rate it a five out of ten. It is not ready yet. It needs focus by Microsoft.

I use Microsoft Entra ID in my company for provisioning and deprovisioning identities and access.

In the organization where I work, Microsoft Entra ID helps automate the process of creating accounts and purging multiple accounts when they are no longer needed.

The most valuable components of the solution are provisioning and deprovisioning since both features work.

My organization is less familiar with some of the new tools in the market, so I don't know whether I can speak about what needs improvement in Microsoft Entra ID presently.

I have to absorb whatever I have learned about Microsoft Entra ID. I don't know if I can say what additional features need to be introduced in the product, but I can say that the product looks promising based on what I have learned about Microsoft Entra ID.

Attempts to simplify hooks to perform access management are not always easy, but in my organization, we might be able to make some progress in the future.

Microsoft's technical support has shortcomings where improvements are required.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID since 2005. My organization plans to enter into a partnership with Microsoft, but presently, we are just a customer.

Microsoft Entra Verified ID is a very stable solution.

I have not had any issues with Microsoft Entra Verified ID's scalability feature.

There are 1,50,000 end users of the solution in my organization.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

My company has been using Microsoft Entra ID since the release of its earliest version, which was in the mid-2000s.

I was involved in the original deployment or initial setup of Microsoft Entra ID in my organization, and we found it to be a complex process. In the past, my organization was involved in the migration process from a custom Oracle-based solution to Microsoft Entra ID. Microsoft Entra ID was a product that was a new acquisition for Microsoft at the time, in which some custom development work by our company's team was required.

The product is used for our enterprise, an academic medical center with many different hospitals, owing to which the tool is deployed centrally.

The solution is deployed on hybrid cloud services offered by Microsoft Azure Cloud.

The product's deployment phase was carried out with the help of my organization's in-house personnel.

My company has not used many of the new features available with the product's new prices, so I cannot speak if I have seen an ROI from the use of the product in my organization.

I have seen an ROI from the use of the solution if I consider its past usage in our organization since we were able to eliminate work that a lot of people had to do manually, like the creation or deletion of identities.

I work for an academic medical center, where there is a watch kept over every dollar spent. I do have concerns about the micro charges for different levels or features of the product.

My company did consider a product from IBM against Microsoft Entra ID during the evaluation phase. My company chose Microsoft Entra ID since we were involved with Microsoft Active Directory Domain Services. Microsoft Active Directory Domain Services was a nicely tied product with Microsoft Entra ID.

Microsoft Entra ID provides almost a single pane of glass for managing user access, but not in my organization's environment because we have a little bit of custom work to do at our end. It looks like my organization might be able to see how the solution provides a single pane of glass for managing user access in the future.

A single pane of glass affects the consistency of the security policies, as it helps reduce a lot of confusion for the IT professionals who need to work with Microsoft Entra ID. It is very confusing when IT professionals have to bounce to different URLs to find access to tools needed to do their jobs, which was an issue for me, but it looks like there have been some improvements.

I don't use Microsoft Entra Verified ID.

I do use Microsoft Entra Permissions Management, but probably not the way it is designed to be used.

The solution has helped my organization's IT admins and the HR department save a lot of time.

The solution has helped my organization save money, but I cannot quantify it.

I ardently carry out processes where I build out and test a solution and then run a proof of concept before moving to a particular product. I suggest that others who plan to use Microsoft Entra ID consider the aforementioned aspects.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

I have a total of fifteen years of experience in the IT industry, and I have worked with multiple technologies including, Exchange, Office 365, and Intune, and then a little bit of SharePoint. I have excellent experience with Entra ID. We have handled a lot of migrations from on-prem to the cloud. We've also done reverse migrations.

We can centralize and manage everything much more effectively with this tool. We are able to leverage role-based access controls and maintain IAM (identity actions management).   

We can also leverage Defender from a policy and security perspective so we can protect against vulnerabilities of all types. 

For remote workers, when they try to log in with the domain username and password, the device will get synchronized to the Azure Active Directory using the device identification method and it will enter an identification letter based on the policy we have derived. This helps us maintain a modern workforce organization. From our modern work workspace configuration, we can centralize and manage everything - even for off-site employees. It doesn't matter the device. It can be a laptop, iPhone device, or Android device - any mobile phone device. Everything is now centralized.

Entra ID Connect is good. If you are migrating your office environment or data center environment, to the cloud, it will do the handshake between the local director and the cloud. Based on that, the objects will be synchronized from the local active directory to the Azure active directory, and that way the users can access both the cloud-related resources, as well as on-prem applications. They can do everything through a single sign-on object. 

It provides us with a single pane of glass for managing user access. We can log onto the Azure portal and maintain all Azure objects. We can enable features so that the user can access everything using the same username and password. If the company needs an MFA license, it can use the Authenticator or any phone or DB PIN of third-party feeder keys. The product allows for a lot of security features. 

As a vendor, we do also have the Defender tool which can help with security robustness.

They have a good feature called conditional access. We have a lot of conditional access policies. For example, MFA. For each application, we can specify access. We can also search for the conditional access policy in Azure Active Directory. We've used it with Endpoint Manager. We can make it so a device can only authenticate within a specific region and any other region would get blocked. We've deployed a lot of conditional access. It reduces the risk of unpatched devices gaining access to our network.

We've used Verified ID. It's good for verification purposes.

We've also used Permission Management. It helps with role-based access. We can create separate role-based access policies for distinct departments. We'll only give specific permissions to specific groups, for example, and they'd only have limited access to certain areas. We can really customize the policy to make the access very granular. We gain good visibility and control over identity permissions. We can configure and deploy down to specific locations or devices based on a customer's needs.

The product has helped us save time for IT admins and the HR department. It's easy to do a password reset. Instead of having to raise a case with every tool, IT can write a ticket for users and do it all from one spot.

Active Directory has saved our organization money. When you deploy the virtual machine, initially, if you are you have a data center server, the server will be kept online in the data center environment. However, nowadays, in the cloud environment, if you have the virtual machine for the application and you can autoscale the server, you can perform on that. If it is off-peak hours, the server will not need to function. It will be shut down based on the rules we define. During that time, the cost is minimal.

We don't have as much control. It's all Microsoft. If any service is down, it can affect a whole region. We would need to wait on a ticket and get word from Microsoft to understand the issues. If it takes longer to resolve the issue on Microsoft's side, all we can do is wait for them to fix it. If it was under our data center, we'd be able to give it immediate attention directly.

I've used the solution for almost five years. 

The stability is fine, although we cannot do anything about it. We cannot directly specify the gateway. That's decided on Microsoft's side, depending on where the user connects from. I'd rate the stability eight out of ten.

I'd rate the scalability eight out of five. Nowadays, we do not need to procure physical hardware, so it's easy to scale up. We can add new virtual machines with ease based on the application support from the OEMs. If you want to increase RAM, this is automatically done via autoscaling.

We've dealt with technical support. Whenever we have issues, we'll write a ticket. We have a premium license and we'll write tickets under that. They'll coordinate with us for any major issues.

Support used to be better. We'd prefer to fix the issue ourselves rather than go through Microsoft. However, they are still helpful and responsive under the license we have.

Neutral

Previously, I did not use anything. I've always relied on Windows-related technology. We had used Windows 2008 and 2012 servers in the past. Now we use 2019 and 2022 servers as well as the latest environment. 

I have used Okta in the past, however, I don't remember much about it. I've used previous versions of it. 

I was not directly involved in initial setup tasks, however, when they migrated the user's object from the local active directory to the cloud, then we used a third-party tool called Cluster Migration Manager, and we used the tool to migrate the object user and object functionality to Azure.

We have continuity load balancers and we have also deployed VMs and SQL databases. we've configured a lot under this product.

We do use premium licenses. One has limited access and the other has more features. Users might also have Office 365 licenses in order to use Exchange. If a company has a large number of employees, like 2,000 or so, they should look at enterprise-level licensing. Educational instituations can access educational licenses. 

We tend to use Windows, however, users may also use AWS or Google if they want and align on that. We work based on the customer's needs and align with whatever they may be.

We usually work for customers that deal with Microsoft. We're consultants, not direct Microsoft partners. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We are using Azure Active Directory to secure our identity and applications throughout our corporate. All the authentication is done automatically.

It provides a single pane of glass for managing user access. It streamlines the IT access management process and improves the security of the IT systems. If there are any configuration changes in the software, they are taken care of automatically.

The integration of Azure Active Directory with other Microsoft services is very easy. We can integrate it with Teams, 365, or any other Microsoft solution.

Azure Active Directory provides a seamless and secure way for employees to access work resources that have been assigned to them. They can access the resources from anywhere and work from anywhere.

Azure Active Directory provides a robust set of features. Features such as multifactor authentication and conditional access policies are in-built. These features enhance the security of the IT systems and protect sensitive information from potential threats.

Conditional Access helps to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls. Conditional Access provides more secure authentication for us. We also use multifactor authentication to secure our enterprise from any potential threats.

Permission Management helps to bifurcate the users based on various roles, such as administrator.

Azure Active Directory has saved us time. It has helped to save four hours a day. It has also saved us money. There is about a 10% saving.

Azure Active Directory has affected the employee user experience in our organization. It is seamless. They do not get to feel it is there.

It is very simple. The Active Directory functions are very easy for us. Its integration with anything is very easy. We can easily do third-party multifactor authentication. Automating IT governance is also easy. These are the advantages that we have.

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.

I have been using this solution for six years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have 1,500 users and two admins, and we plan to continue using Azure Active Directory.

Their technical support is very good. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

Positive

We were using Oracle Database. We moved to Azure Active Directory because it is a higher access management solution. It is more secure and helps to manage entities across hybrid and multi-cloud environments.

Its initial setup is very easy. We had to do policy configuration and user configuration. That was it.

It does not require any maintenance from our end.

We had one person for the initial setup.

It is worth the money.

Overall, I would rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of ten. It is a complete identity access management solution for security and managing all types of multi-cloud environments.