Microsoft Entra ID 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 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.

My organization uses Microsoft Entra ID for some people who access Azure, especially for people who need Azure for different things. My organization deals with people transitioning from a standard data center environment into a cloud-based one to meet their needs. My organization has certain conditional access to certain people because we have access to government and cloud services or a commercial environment, along with different versions of each of those across different groups. I would say that most of our organization's work is just giving conditional access to people and occasionally vendors, but nothing too absurd.

I don't want to say that the product hasn't improved anything for my organization. The problem with the solution stems more or less from the fact that technology is moving ahead, and my organization needs to try to keep up with the changes, which makes it a new way of doing things that will be applicable to the future. Maybe if we could transition to certain things faster, I would have seen the product's full benefits. Since the areas of transitions related to the solution are slow, I haven't experienced the full depth of what I can do with the product.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to delegate roles to each individual resource, which is great. I think the aforementioned feature is better done in the solution itself than with an actual local AD.

I wish transitioning from Microsoft Active Directory to Microsoft Entra ID was a little easier, and I didn't have to learn so many new concepts. I faced difficulties from Micorosft's end and during the transition from Microsoft Active Directory to Microsoft Entra ID. Sometimes, some of Microsoft's documentation could be a little outdated. The product doesn't meet the organization's niche requirements, especially in our environment. Microsoft Entra ID is not a very standard product.

When I think about the trade-off I have had to go for to get the aforementioned feature, it does annoy me. For me, I can't mirror accounts with the solution. I need to consider that we have so many groups and subscriptions, and I can't just see a blanket of their different individual roles in every single resource if I create an account for someone who takes over a job in the organization. In the solution, some people might have specific roles in one resource, which might be the only thing in there. With Microsoft Entra ID, I can't view every instance, and I have to go one by one subscription all the way down, which is a huge pain when you have 400 to 500 subscriptions. The aforementioned aspects can be considered for the improvement of the solution.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for the last five years, but not at its full capacity because, in our organization, we have to ensure that we help with the migration process of different governmental agencies piece by piece since we are a multi-cloud, multi-tenant, multi-forested environment. My organization is a customer of the product.

When it comes to the technical support for the product, I have a representative who works for me, making the support good since I can have him put under fire. I have had some issues with the tool. The IT security audits that come under Microsoft Services Hub are something we needed in Microsoft Gov cloud, and there's only a certain region of Microsoft Gov cloud that supports it, meaning you cannot use Microsoft Services Hub on it, which is all fine as you just have to run it either for by line or you have to run it from within Azure's portal. I had three separate calls with Microsoft's technical support about it, and it was the third tech person who told me after looking at the ticket raised by my organization with the support that the support team had not even finished adding our ticket to their list, which to me was like an organizational issue. Apart from the aforementioned issue I faced with the support team, I feel everything else has been fine. I wouldn't go around saying that Microsoft offers bad technical support.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

As the product already existed before I joined my current organization, I was not involved in its deployment phase. I have some past experience with the deployment processes of Microsoft Entra ID and Microsoft Active Directory. The deployment process of Microsoft Entra ID was easy, and it is not anything different or terrible.

The time for deployment of the tool depends on the client or the project my organization deals with, and a lot of the clients I have worked for are pretty small teams. I haven't had to do too much in terms of deployment.

My organization hasn't considered switching to a different product, but I know that we have some AWS environments with IAM solutions.

It is easy to use the solution's offering of a single pane of glass for managing user access if you have experience with Azure for a while. During the transitioning period, the depth that revolves around the concepts of blades in Azure can be annoying, especially while attempting to relearn the new places where everything is stored. It feels like Microsoft invented a new language for their new system, but a lot of it is just like an updated version of what it was. I have many people at work who have never heard of Microsoft Entra ID and claim to use Microsoft Active Directory without realizing they are the same. Microsoft Entra ID is just a new version of Microsoft Active Directory.

As a product that offers a single pane of glass, it works great and offers consistency to our organization's security policies if I consider the little or limited Azure we have.

My organization hasn't implemented the tool over 900 other devices yet, so I don't know how it will work after that.

Microsoft Entra Verified ID is good when it comes to privacy and control of identity data. Regarding Microsoft Entra ID, my organization sees a lot of contractors and vendors that come in, which gives us confidence or at least ways to sell it to politicians who have confidence that we can do something.

My organization uses Microsoft Entra Permissions Management, but we are not too in-depth into it. I feel Microsoft Entra Permissions Management is nice. I believe that Microsoft Entra Permissions Management helps reduce risk surface. I don't like one of the top-level tenants in the product. As the product goes down into different resources or subscriptions, I see that agencies own them. Sometimes, I feel my organization's offerings look good, but when I dig into the offerings of other agencies, I realize that we are not good.

The time-saving capabilities of the solution experienced by IT administrators or the HR department in my organization have been more or less the same.

I haven't seen the budget in a way that can help me figure out if using the solution in my organization has helped save money.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

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. 

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.

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.

I usually use Microsoft Entra ID to access our resources and to manage our approvals. It is used to assign roles, set limits, and manage access levels. For specific users, I ensure that nobody else has access. My personal files are protected, and confidential projects are kept secure.

The solution has helped build trust. I trust what I am doing and make sure that my files are protected and safe.

Microsoft Entra ID offers strong security levels, especially with two-step authentication, which confirms that I am the real user. It ensures that nobody can access files or emails without permission. Additionally, it consolidates sign-in requirements across different services, like GitHub, Twitter, and Upwork, in a single application. Microsoft Entra ID changes permissions to role access ID levels, ensuring access to only what is needed.

I do not see any area needing improvement. Perhaps integration with other AI tools, beyond Copilot, could enhance its use, like signing into ChatGPT.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for almost more than fifteen years.

I have not experienced any performance or stability issues with Microsoft Entra ID.

Microsoft Entra ID is scalable. It can accommodate many accounts, beyond just a few.

I have not been in contact with Microsoft customer service.

Positive

I evaluated Google Identity and HashiCorp but decided to stay with Microsoft Entra ID because of its user-friendliness and familiarity.

The initial setup of Microsoft Entra ID was very straightforward.

The deployment of Microsoft Entra ID was handled in-house by our department.

I have not thought about return on investment because the company provides Microsoft Entra ID. However, the protection it offers is invaluable.

The cost of Microsoft Entra ID is around $8 per month, which I find very reasonable.

I evaluated Google Identity and HashiCorp.

I rate the solution at ten because it is a great solution for those looking for security and privacy.

The main use case for Entra ID is to move from on-premises to the cloud. I have been doing a lot of cloud transformation work, and I have seen that most organizations that move to the cloud see a lot of benefits in terms of monitoring and IAM. In those cases, we move to Entra ID.

Entra ID provides a single pane of glass for access management. Microsoft Identity confirms users and the access management grants access. In terms of IT and access management, Entra ID provides better management and monitoring solutions that can be used effectively. Entra ID can be used by IT administrators and app developers. It offers a wide range of options for onboarding applications to the cloud. For example, enabling single sign-on for an on-premises application can be time-consuming. However, moving the application to Entra ID is straightforward. App developers can use Entra ID APIs to build personalized experiences, set up single sign-on, customize applications, and monitor them.

The single pane of glass consistency for user sign-on experience is very good because Entra ID is a solution from Microsoft that is available in different regions around the globe. This means that we always have better visibility and management of user sign-on, and now Microsoft apps also moved to Microsoft Entra. This provides a unified experience where we can manage access and permissions from a single location.

The consistency of our security policy is excellent. It is very granular, allowing us to scope it to groups or access it via the API. We also have Entra ID PIM, which allows us to granularly control access to resources. This is a very good option for access management.

Active Directory's Admin Center is a very good tool for managing all identity and access tasks in our organization. It provides a single pane of glass for managing users, groups, external identities, and roles. It also allows us to create administrative units, which can be used to scope access to a set of users, groups, and devices. We can also use Admin Center to view licenses, company branding, user settings, security settings, sign-in logs, provisioning logs, usage, and insights. Admin Center also makes it easy for admins to troubleshoot problems. For example, if we need to debug something, we can log into Admin Center and check the sign-in logs.

There were many benefits to moving to Entra ID. The main benefit was that it was a game-changer, especially for monitoring. When we were using Active Directory, everything was local. This meant that we had to build our own monitoring solution for each application that was onboarded into AD. This was a time-consuming and expensive process. With Entra ID, we can use Microsoft Sentinel or Entra ID Monitor to monitor all of our applications from a single location. This is a huge time and cost savings. Another benefit of Entra ID is that it makes it easy to onboard new applications. With AD, we had to deploy the application on-premises and then configure IT and access management. This was a complex and time-consuming process. With Entra ID, we can simply onboard the application and then grant Identity Access Management to the application. This is a much simpler and faster process.

Conditional access is a powerful feature that allows us to define a set of conditions that must be met in order for users to access our applications. This can help us to improve security by ensuring that only authorized users can access our data, regardless of where they are or what device they use. For example, we could create a policy that requires users to be located in a specific country or to use a specific device type in order to access our applications. We could also require users to use multi-factor authentication in order to access our applications. Conditional access policies can be applied to all of our applications, including those in Entra ID and Office 365.

Conditional access policy plays a key role in zero trust security. In the conditional access policy, there is a feature called named locations, which allows us to exclude devices from a condition if they are coming from a trusted location. For example, if we add an exclusion for trusted locations to our conditional access policy, it will directly impact our zero trust policy. The main driver for any organization to move to zero trust security is to reduce the number of named locations in their conditional access policies. By reducing the number of named locations, we can increase the security of our organization by making it more difficult for attackers to gain access to our systems.

I have been using the conditional access feature in conjunction with the endpoint manager for a long time. This is a great feature because it helps us to monitor threats and direct users accordingly. It is a very useful feature for monitoring our endpoints. For example, if a user tries to access a service, the check can be done and the endpoint manager will be able to provide us with all the findings.

Microsoft Defender for Endpoint can identify any PaaS devices that connect to a network. This includes any unpacked devices that are trying to use an application that is onboarded in Entra ID or any persistent Office 365 application, such as Microsoft Teams, Outlook, or OneDrive.

I have been using Entra Verified ID on the proof of concept. It is one of the best ways to onboard a remote employee. Since COVID in 2020, we have all been working remotely. It is better to onboard an employee who is present remotely in a different location than to ask them to come to the office, collect a laptop, and then onboard them. Verified ID makes this process easier by using preset, already-known information that is present in our company directory. For example, when an employee is interviewed, they are given face verification through a government ID. The ID is collected and a photograph is taken, which is then stored in the HR database. With this information, we can onboard employees remotely and grant them access to all of the company's resources. This is a much easier option than asking everyone to come to the office and ask for help from the overloaded service desk team.

The speed at which we can onboard a remote employee depends on how we define it in the initial planning. If we set the correct standards, such as the type of information we need to verify the employee's identity, we can streamline the process. For example, if we require the employee to provide a government ID and a photograph, the HR department can collect this information in advance and process it in the company's database. This will make it easier for the employee to complete the onboarding process remotely.

When it comes to controlling and prioritizing the privacy of identity data, there are multiple ways to do so. One way is to onboard remote employees with information that is already present in the company directory. This information can be verified by HR, who has already obtained the employee's consent to share their personal information. Another way to onboard remote employees is to ask them to provide a photo and government ID. This information is also stored in the company's database and is not shared with Microsoft. Microsoft only creates a digital identity for the employee and uses this identity to validate the employee's remote onboarding. In both cases, the employee's personal information is not exposed to the Internet. Microsoft and the company have a secure channel for exchanging this information, so there is no problem with data privacy.

The permission manager in Entra ID is very good. Microsoft improved it a lot. Microsoft Entra is the new permission manager solution. It provides comprehensive visibility into the permissions assigned to all identities, such as user identities. It also allows us to check the current permissions that are given to users. This is a better way to manage permissions. Permission management is a really good option that has a lot of benefits and improvements, especially when moving to the Microsoft enterprise.

When it comes to identity and permission management, the risk is relatively low when using a cloud-managed solution. This is because cloud-managed solutions provide full visibility and the option to automate permission management. One of the benefits of cloud-managed identity and permission management is that it allows us to implement the principle of least privileges. This means that we can give users and workloads only the permissions they need to do their jobs. This helps to reduce our attack surface and makes it more difficult for attackers to gain access to our systems. Another benefit of cloud-managed identity and permission management is that it provides us with visibility into our user and workload identities. This allows us to quickly identify and remediate any security issues that may arise.

Entra ID helps our IT administrators and HR department save time. It reduces the custom task of deploying and onboarding any application. This means that administrators can easily onboard applications to Entra ID and provide users with a single sign-on experience. As a result, administrators have more time to focus on improving their skills and deploying new Entra ID features. Entra IDoffers a wide range of features, including artificial intelligence capabilities such as Chat GPT. This frees up a lot of time that was previously spent managing the local active directory. Entra ID has freed up most of my weekends. When I was previously working with on-premises data centers, I had to patch my servers every weekend, which was a time-consuming and tedious task. However, now that all of my applications have been moved to Entra ID, these tasks have been drastically reduced. As a result, I would say that my weekends are now almost free.

Entra ID saved lot of organization money. I see previously organizations investing in expensive solutions for data centers, which required a lot of maintenance and the need to find the right talent to manage them. However, with Microsoft Entra ID, we no longer have to worry about maintaining data centers, as they are completely managed by the cloud. This has made our operations easier and more efficient, as we can now deploy changes quickly and easily, and receive alerts when any issues are found.

Entra ID positively affected our user experience.

Microsoft Entra ID Protection and Microsoft Sentinel are both excellent monitoring features for Microsoft Entra ID.

Beneficial of Entra Monitor and Log Analytics to monitor the secure operation of Entra ID services.

Great improvements in the Modern Authentication Strategy Passwordless FIDO2 improvements & Entra ID verification 

In terms of licensing - being able to pick some premium features without purchasing a package is advantageous.

Increasing the free log retention period might be more beneficial.

Compatibility features for legacy systems integration with new features will be challenging at times.

I have been using Microsoft Entra ID for ten years. Microsoft Entra ID has been a critical component of Microsoft cloud offerings since the time it was introduced.

Entra ID is extremely stable and Microsoft absolutely brings new improvements to this feature.

Entra ID is highly scalable. I have seen multiple organizations over 80,000 people in use Entra ID worldwide.

The technical support is good but sometimes it can be difficult to connect with the right engineer when you are working in a complex enterprise environment.

Neutral

Out of all my experiences i have seen organizations using  Microsoft Active Directory before switching to Entra ID.

The initial setup is straightforward. I completed most of the deployment myself with excellent support from the Microsoft support Team.

In most of the cases the implementation was completed in-house with support from the Microsoft support Team.

We have seen a return on our investment with Microsoft through improved performance, better management, and enhanced features.

Entra ID's pricing is comprehensive and affordable. The prices are easy to understand, and the licenses include a variety of security monitoring and additional features.

I have evaluated Google Cloud Identity and AWS Directory Service, but I felt more comfortable with Entra ID.

I give Microsoft Entra ID a nine out of ten.

Entra ID does not require maintenance from our end.

For someone evaluating Entra ID, it is important to understand their use case, business requirements, current solution, and expectations. The current solution is important to understand because it will help to identify any gaps that Entra ID could potentially fill.

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.

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.