Google Cloud Identity Reviews

The solution is primarily used for single control and single sign which helps with the security and authentication of multiple devices.

The integration should be made easier. 

I have been using the tool for the last three-four months. 

There were some issues with stability, initially. It was not working seamlessly as some of the users were facing problems like logging into Google's own apps versus communicating with our app. There were certain challenges some of the users that got resolved in three-four weeks.

The tool is scalable. 

During the initial setup their response has been good. After that, we have not seen much of an issue with the Google support.

Initially, the setup was complex because there was a learning curve, so the team did hit some issues with the integrations and making it work seamlessly. It was not simple but not complicated either. The solution was deployed in a week.

I think the pricing is reasonable. 

We did look into a few options. The solution was more straightforward for us because most of our ecosystem was already on Google Cloud. Rather than being extensive, we evaluated whether the product met our needs.

It is important to note down the different use' cases and then make a decision. It is recommended to undertake an early workshop for user case discovery.

I rate it an eight out of ten.

The solution is user-friendly. Anyone can use it. Google has clear documents for most of its features.

We cannot manage the attributes of SSPR. Microsoft has such provisions. The product does not have the dynamic groups feature provided by Microsoft. Equal to and not equal to are the only two contents in Google. Features like user life cycle governance and lifecycle management provided by Microsoft are not available in Google.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I rate the product’s stability a six out of ten.

Scalability is very good. I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten. In my organization, more than 1500 people are using the solution.

The support team is pathetic. We can't reach Google Enterprise Support directly. We need to follow up with the partner who is supporting us. We need to follow their clock. If things get escalated, then Google Enterprise Support will get involved through email. Sometimes this process causes business impacts.

The technical support team is very polite. The team answers our questions patiently and helps us resolve the issues. The process of getting to the technical person on the call is pathetic. The first level of support goes to the partners. Based on our license structure, it goes to Enterprise, Business, or Standard. From there, we can escalate and take the issue to the next level and reach the technical support team.

I used Microsoft. I recommend Microsoft over Google because I feel that Microsoft has more capabilities on the security side.

The initial setup of the instance was straightforward.

The deployment doesn’t take long for an experienced person. We just have to activate the instance. The deployment is very easy. Once Google gives us space, MX will be very easy for us to set up. I implemented the product using GCDS. Provisioning and de-provisioning can be controlled from Active Directory. 

There are no challenges in user deployment. Based on the condition, it will be pushed immediately. Scoping of the license for use and everything else will be predefined based on the role. I don't feel any challenges in the deployment process. It's very good. The process is pretty simple. The solution clearly notes each and every point in the documents. We faced no challenges.

The licensing cost depends on the partners and the relationship between the company and the partners. We can get some discounts. We have a combination of licenses. We have some Business licenses and also some Enterprise licenses. Google does not directly deal with the billing fee.

Google is in a growing phase of IdP. The service is not full-fledged. I consider it an IdP. I am a fan of Google when it comes to emailing and other services. However, for user and access management, I would always opt Microsoft. The product is missing security features and a few other key features like attributes and dynamic group conditions that are required for ABAC and RBAC. 

The solution needs to improve the key features. Google is a very cool tool to leverage licensing. For the last one and a half years, they were on a litigation hold for the user's email box and drives. Overall, I would rate the product a six out of ten.

We use the solution for collaboration and productivity. My company also uses it for logging into laptops.

The tool provides a free service that you can integrate for laptop authentication. You also don’t need a separate Active Directory.

I want the tool to improve its support. It should also incorporate some functionalities. Currently, preparing presentations in Google is a pain point. The tool’s certain features like user provisioning are not intuitive as well. The product’s LDAP support is very poor. Clients do not trust the product due to the spam.

I have been using the product for six years.

The solution is stable. I would rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten.

The product is quite scalable. I would give it a seven out of ten. We have around fifty users for the solution.

The tool’s support doesn’t provide information when we contact them.

Neutral

I have worked with Azure. If there is competition between Azure and Google Cloud, I would prefer Azure over Google Cloud.

The product’s installation is straightforward.

I would rate the tool a seven out of ten.

I've performed some tasks in the last month, such as creating users, channel applications, and single sign-on integrations with both cloud and on-premise applications. 

The creation of Service Accounts (SAN) or channel applications is somewhat different from Azure Active Directory. Google Cloud Identity uses what they call organizational units (OUs) instead of the security groups you'd find in Microsoft's Entra. 

You can establish a connection between Active Directory and Google Cloud Identity, much like with Microsoft's Entra, allowing user synchronization between on-premises and cloud environments. 

In terms of security, there's a significant difference. Microsoft Entra is more security-oriented compared to Google Cloud Identity. Microsoft has invested heavily in security, offering features like multifactor authentication and advanced options. 

While Google Cloud Identity has some basic security options like multifactor authentication and features similar to conditional access, it lacks the depth of security features that Microsoft Entra provides. I've used their Active Directory connector SAML integrations and set up single sign-on integrations between applications and Google Cloud Identity.

There is room for improvement in the configuration of their security policies. It seems quite basic. While they offer geolocation and some device management, including multifactor authentication, it feels too elementary for an identity management solution. Microsoft Entra has advanced features, including those related to artificial intelligence, which Google Cloud Identity currently lacks. It appears that Google Cloud Identity is a step behind Microsoft Azure in terms of security features.

I've used what was formerly known as G Suite, now rebranded as Google Workspace and, more specifically, Google Cloud Identity. They tend to change the names of their solutions quite frequently.

The initial setup is simple. You need a verified domain. I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy. 

Microsoft Entra is a bit more expensive, Google Cloud Identity is relatively similar. However, considering the features offered, I lean towards Microsoft Entra.

We are a managed service provider, and our solutions are often based on what our clients have. We had to use Google Cloud Identity for an integration between Cisco AnyConnect VPN and MD Cloud Identity. 

These were the resources our client had. We were considering offering them Azure Active Directory or Microsoft Entra, or sticking with their platform in Google Cloud. After comparing these options, they chose Google Cloud Identity. We integrated their VPN with a single sign-on through Google Cloud.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. The solution can improve a lot. 

We use Cloud Identity for application authentication. 

All of Cloud Identity's features are quite fine.

The interface could be more user-friendly. 

I've been using Cloud Identity for three years.

Cloud Identity is stable. 

Cloud Identity is scalable enough for our needs. It's serving more than 3,000 users in our organization.

Google support is fantastic. 

I can't recall how long the Cloud Identity takes to set up, but it wasn't cumbersome. 

The license is yearly, and it's cheap.

I rate Cloud Identity nine out of 10. 

We are using Google Cloud Identity as a single sign-on solution or for access management where you can determine who is accessing work and when.

The most valuable feature of Google Cloud Identity is group access. You are able to assign policies to groups instead of users individually.

Google Cloud Identity the UI could improve.

I have been using Google Cloud Identity for approximately two years.

Google Cloud Identity is stable.

The scalability of Google Cloud Identity is good.

Everyone in my organization is using it. We have approximately 4,000 users using it.

The support from Google Cloud Identity is good.

The initial setup of Google Cloud Identity is not difficult. You have to create the groups and users and give them a link to the applications that you want them to access. You need to add all the permission. It's something that can be implemented easily. The time it takes depends on the complexity. For example, if you have a lot of users and the access and tools that they will have access to are high then it will add to the time.

We did the implementation of Google Cloud Identity in-house.

I rate Google Cloud Identity an eight out of ten.

Google is always on its own. Google Cloud Identity is pretty good on every point.

The one place it could be improved is the password vaulting. The password vaulting does not prevent the admins from reading users' passwords, and that's a debate.

Some say, if you're an employee and you goof up or something happens, your admin should be able to see your password. In my world - no. If I goof up my admin should be able to reset my passwords but not see what they were. If I want to use the name of my dog plus numbers, he doesn't need to read that. He just needs to reset it. That's a distinction. We call it zero trust. Password vaulting should not allow the admin the possibility to read. I made the observation to Google and they said, "Well, yes, but it's logged," and that's not good enough.

The fact that the super admin was able to read all of my passwords and that it's logged, the log is only for the super admin - he is the only person that reads them and which will have the log that he read them.

Besides the password vaulting, it works fine. It's just that security notion that I'm not comfortable with. So I'm using a password manager, hence LastPass when password vaulting is required.

In the next release, we need to clean up the console for the admin. In the three years that I am using it, I think I'm up to my sixth version. This is proof that if they change the console so much, it's because they keep on trying to improve it. 

What they need to improve, clearly, is the zero trust enrollment for Chrome OS devices. They are getting there, but they need to keep on improving it. So zero trust enrollment to make it super smooth, buttery smooth. 

I have been using Google Cloud Identity nearly since it came out, so more than two years, perhaps three. The full name is Google Cloud Identity Premium.

I'm using LastPass Enterprise and Saaspass in the same field, and Google Cloud Identity Premium. Those are my three go-to products now.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Google Cloud Identity a nine because of its password vaulting. Also, it does what Okta does but for many more zeros on the invoice.

The solution has a good amount of features.

The product does integrate well with Azure products.

It's easy to set up.

The stability is good.

The solution can scale.

If I compare the product with Azure Active Directory, Google is much too complex to integrate. I am more familiar with Microsoft.

It has a bit of a complex interface.

Technical support is slow.

The security is questionable. 

I've been dealing with the solution for three or four months at this point. It hasn't been too long.

The stability is very good. There aren't bugs or glitches. it's reliable. it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the scalability to be quite good.

In Google, if we want support they are very slow to respond. Microsoft support is much better and far more responsive. We aren't quite as satisfied with Google. 

When we want to integrate something with Microsoft, it might take an hour, however, when we want to do something on Google, we'll be trying to reach support for an hour.

I'm also familiar with Microsoft, which I find easier to work with.

For a completely new user and setup, the initial implementation is very straightforward.

As integrators, we can implement the solution for clients.

We're integrators.

In terms of the ecosystem, if the ecosystem there really is no problem with productivity. However,  if they already have a lot of Microsoft, Azure might be better. I'm very happy with Azure. However, as a second option, Cloud Identity is quite good.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.