Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

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.

We use Azure AD to manage all endpoints, including laptops, desktops, mobile devices, such as iPads and iPhones, and users. We can disable accounts, create accounts, reset passwords, maintain access, and manage permissions.

Azure AD is essential to our organization. Our users need to use their Azure AD credentials to log into their computers every morning, and we also manage user accounts in Azure AD. As a result, we cannot function without Azure AD.

We use Entra's conditional access to restrict access to our system from overseas users. This means that users can only log in from Canada and the United States.

Our zero-trust strategy uses conditional access to verify users and prevent unexpected traffic, such as attacks from Russia. This makes our strategy more robust and secure.

We use Entra's conditional access in conjunction with Microsoft Endpoint Manager to limit user logins from Canada and the USA. We also limit devices that can log into the network to only those located in Canada.

Entra has helped our IT administrators save an hour of time per day.

Entra has helped our organization save money.

We used to use on-premises Active Directory. Now, we use Azure Active Directory. The main difference is that users can now reset their own passwords in Azure AD. This is a positive improvement, as it saves time and hassle for both users and IT staff. I believe that this has had a positive impact on our employee experience.

User and device management is the most valuable feature.

I would like Azure AD to provide features similar to check-in on-prem AD. The fetch-all service is the only one that is not currently available on Azure AD.

The technical support has room for improvement.

I have been using Azure AD for five years.

I give Azure AD's stability an eight out of ten.

I give Azure AD's scalability an eight out of ten.

The basic support from Microsoft is not good.

Negative

We previously used the on-premises Microsoft Active Directory. However, we have since switched to Azure Active Directory, which is a cloud-based solution. Azure AD is more flexible and scalable than on-premises AD, and it allows us to save money on hardware costs. This is because we no longer need to purchase and maintain our own servers. Instead, we can simply use the servers that are provided by Microsoft.

The initial deployment was straightforward and took two months to complete. We switched over to the new system and then set up a number of additional features, such as enterprise applications and multi-factor authentication. This took an additional month, for a total of three months. We followed the instructions from Microsoft step-by-step. The deployment required two full-time employees from our organization and three from our partner.

The implementation was completed with the help of an MSP.

We have seen a significant return on investment since switching to Azure AD. Our monthly costs have decreased from $5,000 to $100.

The price is affordable, and we pay around $100 per month.

Both Okta and Azure AD are great solutions. I know that many people use Okta, but my concern is that we are also using Microsoft products on the endpoint. This means that our users use Windows, and it makes more sense to use a front-end and back-end Microsoft solution.

I give Azure AD a nine out of ten.

Azure AD requires very minimal maintenance.

I recommend Azure AD. The solution is straightforward.

We're using the solution for our customers. It's for those that may have been on-premises and moved to the cloud when it started to become mainstream. Users wanted to transfer their users and permissions and so on to the cloud and onto Azure.

Azure is the most comfortable cloud to work with. One company we worked with had infrastructure that needed to go to the cloud, and with Microsoft, it's very easy to move. The company is flexible in terms of how you want to handle a migration or configuration. There are a lot of features that help to implement different solutions and that makes it very easy to work with. 

We are using the solution on different projects. Depending on the project, we use different features. It's great for handling user groups and security policies.

We can use it with Office 365 and Exchange. 

It provides a single pane of glass.

It's given us good consistency in terms of the user's sign-on experience.

Microsoft makes a very good product. It makes the policies quite easy and everything is quite understandable. It provides different tools to implement the same scenario.

The admin center for managing all identity and access risks across an organization is very cool. 

Verified ID is very useful for onboarding remote employees. It helps with privacy control of identity data. It makes security very easy. It makes it simple to protect the client. This feature helps IT and other teams protect the business.

We used permission management about a year ago. I had some experience with AWS. I didn't use GCP. Mostly we use Azure. In our case, when we implemented it with the current client, we didn't have any issues with it. It was clear and very simple. It has helped us in a few cases reduce risk when it comes to identity permissions.

Sometimes the client doesn't need the full functionality; they just need a small part of it - and it still works in those cases.

The product has helped us save time in IT and HR. If you create your directory with some logic, it allows you to streamline tasks. It can help more quickly handle requests. The management aspect helps simplify user interactions with various departments.

Azure has very good services that showcase how much money you are spending. It gives you advice on how to protect yourself from spending too much money. It's helpful when we have new clients. You can show them the financials from Microsoft and it will help illustrate how much it costs, and how much it will cost if you scale. It's very transparent on how much money you would spend depending on the setup. 

It's had a positive effect on the employee user experience. 

Sometimes it is difficult to understand the structure of the menu. Sometimes they make some changes in the configuration structure and you might have trouble finding a button or some functionality based on a UI update. That can be annoying. Too many interface changes can make it confusing. 

The documentation could be better. Microsoft documentation is confusing. We do not like working with documents. There is not one big website where you can find whatever you want. Instead, there are thousands of websites that cover certain parts or services. On top of that, they often have old, out-of-date information that hasn't been checked. This is the most difficult part of dealing with Microsoft. 

I've used the solution for almost four and a half years.

The solution hasn't had any downtime. Everything works perfectly.

We've had some issues with performance around scalability. When we tried to deploy in certain areas, we didn't have enough scalability. This was an unusual situation. Typically, scalability is not an issue, however. 

Sometimes we contact technical support, however, not usually during the initial setup. We tend to fix any issues by ourselves. 

Microsoft has different support teams in different countries. Who you speak to depends on what service you are using.

Automatically, your request is sent to a certain team or location. We have had a lot of issues with the Azure DevOps team, which is routed to India and the level of support is much lower. We had to have multiple calls to close a very simple task.

Positive

I have not used any other different solution previously. 

I was involved in the initial deployment. The setups are always complex. 

How long it takes to deploy depends on the client. We've done it in two days or one week. However, the main work is typically done across two days.

We tend to have two to three people involved in the implementation. 

It doesn't require any maintenance on our side. 

Typically, we always do the setup by ourselves. We handle the setups for the clients. We sometimes ask Microsoft for input.

Microsoft has various pricing tiers. 

I've read about Okta, however, I have never used it or evaluated it.

We are a Microsoft gold partner. 

I've used the conditional access feature, however, not very often.

If your company has more than ten users, you need this service. It gives you a lot of features to help manage your organization. A small startup with a handful of employees likely won't need it. However, if you have an organization with a financial department, a developer department, et cetera, it will get complicated handling access and permissions. Without this solution, you can't be sure you'll be safe - especially as you scale up your employees.

We use different models, including on-premises and cloud.

If you are a regular user, you don't need any special knowledge. However, if you are a technician, you can take exams from Microsoft and find materials about the product and really learn about it. That said, anyone can get a sense of the product simply by searching for it on YouTube.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

The primary use cases for Azure AD include use in projects and deliverables when implementing different solutions like SSPR, multifactor authentication, Conditional Access policies, and fine-graining the controls on end-user machines, devices, and applications. I also use it to sign licenses via different methods, including group-based licensing, direct licensing to individual users, registering applications, and providing CPUs and credentials. Lastly, I use Azure AD for whitelisting external identities and domains for communication between internal and external domains.

Our organization is global, with over nine locations across the world. We have a hybrid environment, which is very complex due to the size of the organization, and we have a varied client base. From a security standpoint, we have a variety of security services and products. 

Azure AD is a one-stop solution where we can manage every aspect of identities, access, and applications via policies across all domains of our organization.

We use the Conditional Access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls. This makes our Zero Trust strategy to verify users more robust, as standard users have limited access, on limited devices, with limited permissions. They can only access the domain on specific machines and must be on the corporate or office network. Access from outside the network isn't possible unless it's from a whitelisted location, and along with MFA, we have a powerful Zero Trust model in place.

Azure AD saves us a lot of time, as we previously used an on-prem legacy solution with poor integrations, which slowed onboarding and other processes. Thanks to the product, we spend approximately 70% less time daily and about 80% less time weekly. That's a big plus. 

The solution helps our organization save money from a cost perspective, and there are several other vital angles to consider. Azure AD is an out-of-the-box product in terms of features and security, which is a reduced cost. Whether an organization requires P1 or P2 licensing is another consideration. Finally, if a company is replacing legacy systems, that's money saved for licensing and maintaining those systems. Some of our clients have seen 30-40% savings, especially those using complete legacy systems and then switching to a cloud environment.   

Azure AD greatly helps user experience, as we can integrate the solution with many services. End-user experience improved, whether staff members try to access resources from mobile or even personal devices. We can fine-tune access control across the enterprise, and that helps us provide a good end-user experience.  

The most valuable features are the Conditional Access policies, SSPR, and MFA. Another good functionality is registering enterprise applications to provide access to external parties. These four features are precious and are the most used across different use cases for various clients and projects.

Azure AD provides a single pane of glass for managing user access; we can assign access permissions to different user accounts based on situational requirements, and helpful security features are available. The solution provides sign-on consistency, and we can configure permissions to enable single sign-on for a particular application or domain. This gives us the flexibility to offer a great user experience.    

The solution gives us a lot of flexibility when it comes to managing all identity and access tasks in our organization. We can manage freshly provisioned identities from scratch, as well as existing identities and apps through the Azure admin center.   

I want better integration between Azure AD and the on-prem environment because there are currently limitations that can hamper employee experience. We use a feature called password writeback, that can be challenging to implement in a hybrid environment. Employees can change their passwords using a self-service password reset (SSPR) feature, which reflects from the cloud to the on-prem identity, but not the other way around. Currently, there is no way to reflect passwords from on-prem identities to the cloud.

There are other similar limitations, such as a cap on the number of identities that can be synchronized in a particular time frame, which can be an issue for large enterprises with 300,000 employees or more.

I've been using the solution for over three years. 

The solution is stable, though there can be issues around synchronization within a vast organization. Performance-wise, Azure AD is a good product.

The scalability is good. 

Microsoft technical support can take a while to resolve. I can get a response in 30 minutes, but the time to resolve is usually more than four hours or over a day. I wonder if the support staff has adequate training and expertise to provide a better service.

Neutral

We previously used on-premises AD and switched to Azure AD because we wanted the benefits associated with cloud-based solutions.

The complexity of the initial setup depends on the deployment; cloud deployments are very straightforward, on-prem implementations are more complex due to the infrastructure, and hybrid deployments are always complex as there are many considerations and assessments to be made.

It is hard to measure ROI with security solutions, but identity is the first point of vulnerability for cyber attacks, so identities must be secure and well-managed. The solution provides this, and that is a worthwhile investment.

Azure AD has four licensing options- free, Office 365 apps, Premium P1, and Premium P2. The free option has a limited number of identities and features, and the Office 365 version comes included in several Office 365 subscriptions. With the P1 and P2 licenses, we get all the freeware features plus additional security features, but these come at a higher price. The base price for P1 and P2 is $6 and $9 per user per month, respectively.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

From a security standpoint, we don't have major controls from Azure AD, but we can implement features such as MFA and Conditional Access policies to fine-grain the rules on apps and devices. We can also enforce policies where users have different sign-on requirements for the same account, depending on where they sign in from.  

We used the solution's Conditional Access feature in conjunction with Microsoft Endpoint Manager as it was a requirement for a client-side project. There were some conflicts between the two tools regarding device management, so we had to select a different approach. Conditional Access reduces the risk of unpatched devices connecting to our corporate network because it triggers the policy stating only compliant devices can log in and access resources.

Clients use different deployment methods for Azure AD, but most implement them within a hybrid environment. A few organizations are entirely cloud and SaaS-based, as they don't want the maintenance and management associated with on-prem infrastructure and prefer the security offered by the cloud.

My advice to those looking to implement the solution is to consider their primary goal and use case for the product and how they want to implement it. If you have a hybrid environment, many details about how Azure AD can fit into the environment must be figured out beforehand. Consider the costs and how the solution will help from a security standpoint over the next five to ten years, from all perspectives, including networking, security, systems management, and maintenance.

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. 

Our hybrid system includes in-house domain controllers and Azure integration to link with Microsoft Office solutions. We develop some small-time applications with Power BI and use the tool for local user authentications.

Our office has only two departments, so we don't use the solution across multiple locations. It's an in-house tool, and we created the hybrid system so that specific users can still connect remotely when they are off-prem. We have around 50 total end users. 

The solution made our organization very flexible and increased our security because we previously faced authentication issues; our users sometimes could not connect from their laptops when they took them off-premises. There were also occasions where the cache was lost, so we couldn't troubleshoot, and users could not log in. This issue was solved, and now the system is flawless.

Azure AD helped to save time for our IT administrators; I haven't calculated precisely how much, but I believe it saves me two to three hours a week. 

We are delighted with our organization's Azure AD user experience, so we have no complaints about that. One of the best aspects is we don't have to update anything; Microsoft handles all of that for us. 

The solution allows users to authenticate from home, and the Office 360 integration is advantageous.

Azure AD provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, making the user sign-on experience flawlessly consistent; there is little difference between working from home or on-premises.  

The single pane of glass makes the application of our security policies very consistent, as they are replicated well. We use a VPN to connect with users while working from home, ensuring our security policies are in place. This means there is little difference when staff work from home, as we can track their work. 

Verified ID is quite effective and secure when it comes to privacy and control of identity data.  

We use the solution's Permission Management, which provides excellent controls over identity permissions in Azure AD, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google Clouds. We don't have any issues with this asset.

The Permission Management feature helps to reduce our risk surface when it comes to identity permissions. 

The product could be more cost-effective. 

We've been using the solution for around four and a half years. 

The stability is excellent; we recently experienced our only Azure outage, which was a global one.

The solution is very scalable.

We never had to contact customer support, and the only time we contacted Microsoft was to renew our contract or change the provider. I provide technical support within our organization.

Positive

We didn't previously use a different solution; before Azure AD, our infrastructure was all on-prem, with only specific data and backup in the cloud.

I carried out the deployment, which was pretty straightforward; I previously did a course on Azure, so it wasn't a problem for me. The solution requires very little maintenance, and I'm the sole admin.

It took around three weeks to realize the benefits from the time of deployment, as we had to migrate many of our older systems into Azure, and the integration involved a lot of other vendors. Our email was on a Linux server, and we had a different cloud provider, so the deployment required significant collaboration with multiple parties.

As a small organization, we didn't have a deployment strategy as such, but my approach was to communicate with the other solutions' vendors to gather the required information. Then, I migrated our Linux emailing system into Azure, after which I went for the data, so it was relatively straightforward.

The solution costs us 60,000 Rupees annually, just over $700, and there are no additional costs.

We have to pay for the antivirus solution Microsoft offers with Azure AD, and they should provide it for free. It comes free with OSs, so it should be free with Azure too.

We didn't evaluate other options; we work solely with Microsoft products, so Azure AD is what we got. 

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

The admin center is very useful, but I prefer to remote into my server to do the administration that way, so I don't use it very much.

We use the solution's Verified ID and two-factor authentication, but we don't use it to onboard remote employees; all our staff are based on-premises and sometimes go off-prem, but typically, they're all in the office. We don't have remote workers as such. 

Regarding cost, I don't think the solution saved us that much, but feature-wise, it's excellent.

To others considering Azure AD, it's an excellent product. If you want stability and simplicity on your system, it's a great choice, and I definitely recommend it.

Microsoft Entra ID is used for user management and directory governance, including conditional access management, sync user management, group management, and application and SSO connections. In short, it is a user, policy, and access management solution for environments with 10,000 to 50,000+ users.

Microsoft Entra ID provides a single pane of glass for user management.

Originally, it was just an integration within Entra ID with limited governance and scalability. Over time, more and more features such as Certificate Authority and Privileged Identity Management have been added, and the amount of governance and controls has increased. As a result, we can now control more aspects within Azure AD. For example, in the beginning, we could not review sign-ins. We could only see simplified final messages. Now, we have more insight into sign-ins, and the overall service has improved. It is now more stable and reliable, which is most important.

Microsoft Entra ID's conditional access feature to enforce fine-tuned and adaptive access controls work. 

When Microsoft Entra ID is implemented properly it can help save our staff time.

If the implementation was done properly, the user experience was seamless. It may have even improved the experience, given that it supports single sign-on and cross-platform access. For example, signing on to enterprise applications was even better. So, it depends on the engineers who implement the product, not the product itself.

Microsoft Entra ID's valuable features include integration capabilities, a simplified Active Directory approach, scalability, conditional access, and privileged identity management.

The single pane of glass has limited filtering options within the directory.

The robustness of the conditional access feature of the zero trust strategy to verify users is adequate but not comprehensive. This means that it is still possible to deceive conditional access.

The group management and group capabilities have room for improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for over five years.

Microsoft Entra ID is mostly stable, but we had some issues with MSA. We must have a backup plan when using a cloud provider. If we put all our trust in one provider, that's on us, but most of the time, the service is stable.

Microsoft Entra ID is scalable. When we provision more and more users, we do not notice any impact. User management may be more difficult due to the portal, loading times, and so on, but provisioning the users themselves is not a problem. We have service limitations, but based on those, we can have a large number of users and work on them smoothly.

The quality of technical support depends on the engineer assigned. I've been working with Microsoft One, and while they have some awesome engineers, I've also had situations where they didn't seem to know what they were talking about.

Neutral

In my previous role, I worked with Google for enterprise, and it was a nightmare. I also worked with Okta, which is not as seamless as Microsoft Entra ID when it comes to MSA and policy management. However, maybe that's the feature, the improvement that can be done. Even though Okta has more errors and is more annoying as a product, it does have one positive: it is a cross-platform product. We can integrate it with non-Microsoft products, while Microsoft works really well with its own products. So, if we use Endpoint, enterprise apps, and 365 services, it will work most of the time, ten out of ten. But if we try to integrate anything else that is not a Microsoft service, it will be a disaster or we will not be able to onboard the service. That is something that Microsoft could improve: make it cross-platform.

The deployment time depends on the knowledge of the engineers and the cloud approach. Therefore, it can take from a few months to a few years, and sometimes it may result in the provisioning of everything because of a gap in knowledge of the people deploying. I have seen really bad deployments because the people were not cloud-ready.

We have seen a ten percent return on investment.

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.

I would give Microsoft Entra ID seven out of ten.

Conditional Access works well with Microsoft Endpoint Manager, but there are better options, as Endpoint Manager is not the best service.

Microsoft Entra ID is an enterprise-level solution.

Microsoft Entra ID does not require maintenance, but the conventional access policy, AD Connect, and server-related ATSs all do.