Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We use Azure AD which enables our customers to remotely access the shared machines within their office, allowing them to work from any location.

Our primary customer transitioned from using a local cluster to utilizing Azure. They initially utilized Hyper-V and have now combined Azure AD with SharePoint Office 365. This new setup has proven to be much more convenient for them compared to their previous local arrangement, which did not work well. With Azure AD, I was able to exert greater control over the content on their machine.

Azure AD saved time for our IT administrators and HR departments, particularly when they need to reset their own passwords or grant permissions to other people within the group by themselves. This saved around 60 hours in total.

Azure AD helped save around 18,000 euros.

Azure AD significantly improved the employee user experience in the company by providing them with enhanced accessibility to their information and facilitating seamless login and logout from their machines while working from home. This is a significant shift from the previous system that relied on a local username and VPN connection and was limited to a fixed cluster.

The most valuable feature is the ease with which a person can log in remotely using only a password or pin without creating a profile or policy.

The permission management is a mess because it is not centralized, especially when we go back from Azure, which is quite big to SharePoint. This is not really well done and has room for improvement.

I would appreciate it if Azure AD could provide an option to simplify its interface by removing unnecessary features for small companies with a maximum of 50 users. This would make it more user-friendly for our customers who find the current interface overwhelming due to its numerous options.

I have been using the solution for almost 12 years.

Azure AD is a stable solution.

Although Azure AD is intended to be scalable, we have not yet verified its scalability by adding more users.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment required around six hours. I only had to import to write the existing users into Azure.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The solution can be cheaper.

I evaluated Google Workspace but I prefer Microsoft.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

The only maintenance required for Azure AD is to modify certain parts on Windows by using policies.

The usefulness of Azure AD depends on several factors such as our intended use, the current system, the number of users, and organizational size. While Azure AD is an excellent choice for larger companies, it may not be beneficial for individuals.

The solution acted as a source of truth for everyone internally and those we collaborated with externally. We deployed it in the cloud, so many of our users are remote and spread across the country.

The features around permissions are excellent.

The general usability of the site could be improved.

The ease of use regarding finding audit information for users could also be improved.

We want to see better integration with other Microsoft 365 products; it's a separate tool, but they all need to work together.

We've been using Azure Active Directory for about four years. 

The product is very stable; I rate it nine out of ten for stability.

Azure AD is very scalable; I rate it nine out of ten for scalability. 

The customer service needs improvement; it takes a long time to open a ticket and get it resolved.

Neutral

We previously used Google G Suite and switched to Azure AD for better security, and to match the platform our clients are using to allow easier collaboration with them.

The initial deployment was straightforward, although we initially found it challenging to understand how to use Azure AD to manage access and permissions with external parties. We carried out the setup using three staff; myself and the IT team.

We have seen an ROI with the solution; the ability to collaborate with external partners provided tremendous value. 

I evaluated Okta some years ago, so that information isn't fresh. 

I rate the product nine out of ten, and I recommend it. 

The primary use cases are task tracking and technical documentation, but I'm a project manager, so I also use the product for other jobs.

We have around 15 total users, with a couple of admins.

The boards for task tracking are a valuable feature. 

Azure AD is a turnkey solution; it provides many features for developers to use in one place.

Many of the features are outdated, so the UI and UX could be improved. 

The wiki is hard to use as it's more of a repository for technical information, but when I'm writing a PRD, I need more tools for writing. 

It would be good if the UI were more visually appealing, as it looks dated compared to other products on the market. It works fine for the dev team, but the navigation could be improved, especially for managers.

I've been using the solution for around two years. 

The stability is okay overall. 

The product is highly scalable; it's enormous and has many features.

I previously used a variety of solutions for task management, including Asana, Teamwork from Microsoft, Jira, and so on. 

I wasn't involved in the deployment; the solution was already in place when I arrived. It doesn't require any maintenance that I'm aware of. 

The product is relatively affordable, especially compared to Okta, a pricey solution.

Azure AD helped save my organization money, as it's a turnkey solution for dev management, though I can't say precisely how much as I'm not involved in the financial side.  

I rate the solution six out of ten. 

I don't use Azure AD's Verified ID, but I'm considering an identity management solution. I'm hesitant about which one to choose, and the choice is between a product from Okta and the one from Azure AD.

I use the Permission Management feature, which I look for when choosing an identity management product, but I'm still in the research phase with this feature.

Most of our staff are okay with the quality of the end-user experience within our organization, but it could be more comfortable to use for managers. It's a challenging solution to implement for every department or team because not everyone likes the UX, and it's pretty outdated when it comes to product document writing. I had an unpleasant experience when we had a power cut, and I lost two pages of documentation, as there is no autosave feature. This is important from a manager's perspective but less so for developers.

For those considering the solution, talk to your dev team to determine if it covers their needs. If so, use it, as it has many features and is very scalable.

The solution strengthened our security posture by providing fine-grained access based on attributes, standardized names, and values. Azure AD reduced our time to market for products based on improved security.

The product also improved our service desk overhead.

Azure AD positively affected our end-user experience via reduced time to market, being an identity product for our workforce.

Privileged Identity Management (PIM), managed identities, dynamic groups, and extension and security attributes are all great features.

Better integration with external governance products would be a welcome addition to Azure AD. 

We've been using the solution for four years.

The solution is stable but can be improved, especially regarding response times.

Azure AD is a cloud-based solution operating from a worldwide tenant, so scalability isn't an issue, especially from an identity perspective. We have 300,000 total end users. 

We have yet to interact with technical support, so I can't speak to that.

We previously used standard AD. 

The setup is mixed; the startup is fast, but configuring requires the knowledge of a consultant or technical resource. Basic deployment can be completed in a day, but our greenfield deployment took a relatively long time as we're a large organization. A greenfield deployment should take at most two weeks, but implementing Azure AD into a functional environment is a project unto itself. It could take months, depending on the use cases.

Regarding maintenance, we're a global organization, and each feature has its own operating team. At our scale, a group of 25 is responsible for managing and maintaining the identity part of the solution.

The pricing depends on the use case and can be negotiated based on volume. 

I rate the solution eight out of ten. 

My advice to others evaluating the product is to do good due diligence beforehand to determine a clear set of requirements, as with any identity tool or access management solution.  

I use it to access my work applications. When I install Microsoft Teams or Outlook, or I want to access my work applications, I authenticate myself using Microsoft Authenticator.

During the pandemic, one of the challenges for organizations was how to secure their IT networks. People were working remotely, and some of them were working from the remotest locations. It gave confidence to the organization that only the right person was getting access to work applications.

It also improves your customer experience or employee experience. You don't have to rely much on servers. 

Being able to easily authenticate yourself on the MSA app is valuable. It is easy to use. Rather than receiving a code in an SMS, you can just verify that it is you. You don't have to punch in any password or any six-digit code. That's the feature that I like the most.

It does give you the confidence that no one else can access your details or can have access to your account because it does add a second layer of security. Even if someone hacks the server where my details are stored, unless and until I authenticate myself on MSA, even hackers won't be able to get into my account.

It works absolutely fine from the login perspective. You can also configure it on third-party devices, and it works pretty well. I haven't faced any issues from the login point of view.

They can improve how people manage their accounts. They can simplify and provide more information about adding or updating a phone number or email id in the MSA account. A lot of time users do get confused about where to go. For example, if I've changed my mobile number, where do I go and change my mobile number in the MSA account? A lot of time, employees think if they change the phone number in the HR database, it'll automatically get changed on the MSA account, which is not the case. Microsoft can simplify that and add these questions in the FAQ documents as well. They can provide more clarity about how it is different from your organization's database.

Voice recognition could be added going forward. With a smartphone, such as iPhone, as well as with Windows Hello for business, you already have facial recognition. Voice recognition is something that could be added going forward, especially for people with special needs.

I have been using it for a year.

It is quite stable. Coming from Microsoft, you don't question the stability factor at all. I have Microsoft Authenticator installed on my phone, and even when I switched organizations, I could simply add my new workplace email id, and it worked absolutely fine. It is quite stable, and it gives you a good user experience.

Scalability-wise, it is quite good. We were rolling it out to 150,000 people across the globe and different geographies. One of the good things is that Microsoft doesn't need any introduction anywhere. In terms of user experience, it is right up there. It is also right up there in terms of how different work applications align with it. I would rate it quite high.

Technical support was good. We didn't have to rely on Microsoft's technical support big time because the solution worked very well overall. We had our third-party technical support team involved as well.

Positive

Before Microsoft Authenticator, we used Okta Multi-Factor, and prior to Okta, we were totally relying on passwords, which was obviously very risky. 

We switched to Microsoft Authenticator because when you implement the whole Microsoft 365 suite, especially in a large organization, all the work applications sync pretty well with Microsoft, and you already have a good relationship with the vendor. 

It was initially on-prem, but later on, we shifted it to the cloud. When I joined the organization, it was already on-prem, and I helped to shift all the data from on-prem to Azure cloud. The process was a little complex. We had a few on-prem issues, and we had to redo the capability testing to check if those issues will arise on the Azure Cloud as well. It was complex because we were again asking some of the users who had changed their phone numbers to go and re-add their phone numbers. If they had the same phone number, it would have worked fine, but if they had changed the phone number, once it is shifted from on-prem to Azure Cloud, it wouldn’t have worked anymore. So, they had to re-add their phone number. The challenge was to identify those users and convince them to redo the activity. This switchover took about two quarters or six months.

We had a team of about 7 to 10 people from project management, change management, IT, and global IT teams. We are a massive organization. It was being rolled out to 150,000 people across the globe.

We did pilot testing across different functions and across different geographies. That's the standard practice that we follow in our organization.

We have seen an ROI. We were able to secure our IT networks by more than 80%. More than 80% of the audience did subscribe to MSA and used it for logging into their work accounts.

It took us two to three months to realize its benefits from the time of deployment. We did run a pilot batch. We were trying to customize the solution according to our network. Within a quarter, we were able to identify its benefits.

I'm not totally aware of the pricing and licensing, but I do know that the pricing and licensing must be quite balanced. We are a pretty old client of Microsoft, and MSA is just one of the services we use from Microsoft. There's a whole Microsoft 365 suite that's implemented as well. I'm sure it is something that is acceptable to both parties.

We were totally relying on Microsoft. We didn't evaluate any other vendor.

To those looking to evaluate this solution, I would advise doing proper pilot testing to iron out any hurdles later on. It is important to take a call on whether you want to adopt the on-prem model or the cloud model. Obviously, the on-prem model is not sustainable if you're trying to secure your IT networks. The cloud model is more sustainable in that sense. I would advise taking that call right in the beginning.

I would also advise considering how to secure third-party devices. There might be third-party contractors who don't have the company laptops, but they do have company email ids to log into the company accounts from their own devices. You should work out how you are going to add those devices to the secure cloud.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. In the next version, if they can come up with voice recognition, especially for people with special needs, it will be helpful.

We use it for various things in the organization:

1. Provisioning access to systems in the cloud for either internal teams or our partners' external teams. 
2. We use Azure AD for Windows device management with Azure AD Intune. We use them for the management of devices. We have company devices, laptops, or tablets all using Azure AD. 
3. Within Microsoft Azure, we use various services, e.g., Office 365, for granting the right level of access to the right people.

I am directly involved in the project. I know what is happening and being done by developers. I have also done some hands-on work in a test environment, using my own account, just to learn.

In our previous organization, we had to give continuous system access to users from external teams, who were not employed by our organization. This solution certainly helped with provisioning access to them, providing them with single sign-on access. It also monitored giant movers and leavers, which was helpful. 

Azure AD has massively affected our end-user experience. It provided a single sign-on for all our partners. They don't have to remember their password. They might be accessing 10 of our systems and don't really need to remember all 10 different user IDs and passwords. In most of cases, they are accessing our systems with their own organization's identity, so they don't need to remember a second user ID and password in addition to their organization's credentials. Requesting access is much better since it is all automated.

Their connection to the on-prem AD is a strong point. A lot of organizations already use on-prem Active Directory. That easily lends to using Azure AD compared to other providers. 

I like the automated provisioning of access, either for internal teams or external teams.

It has things like conditional access. For example, if someone is accessing sensitive information, then we could force them to do multi-factor authentication. Therefore, we can stop access if it is coming from a location that we did not expect. 

Compared to what we can do on-prem, Azure AD lacks a feature for multiple hierarchical groups. For example, Group A is part of group B. Group B is part of group C. Then, if I put someone into group A, which is part of already B, they get access to any system that group B has access to, and that provisioning is automatically there.

Geo-filtering is not that strong in Azure AD, where we need it to identify and filter out if a request is coming unexpectedly from a different country.

I have been using it for five and a half years on multiple projects.

It is very stable. In the last five years, we only had two major incidents on Azure AD. This is key for Azure services. If your Azure AD is down, then it brings down a lot of other services within Azure. 

It is very scalable.

My previous organization, which did power plant construction, had hundreds of partners at any time and about 10,000 internal staff. 

The product is extensively used. Many times, we have changed the way that we design based on new features introduced by Azure AD, so that drives what we do and how we design. Therefore, if they introduce a new feature, we send it straight on to be researched, then determine where we can use it. 

I am not directly in touch with technical support. I have never been on the other end calling Microsoft for technical support.

We didn't use another solution prior to Active Directory, which has been in place for a long time (20 to 30 years).

When we started using this feature, it saved time when provisioning access to users. Critically, it removed access to users who did not need access to the system. That was a significant improvement. Time-wise, we saved about tenfold. Its day-to-day maintenance is also much easier than without it.

We chose Azure AD when going to the cloud. It was key for us to maintain security within the organization. I don't think we could imagine securing our cloud without identity management as strong and rich as Azure AD. It is a key player in anything that we do on the cloud to secure resources and a critical element that determines our security.

I have set up test environments. The setup is easy, not difficult at all. This is one of the solution's strong points.

A lot of people already have on-prem Active Directory. It is a natural step to extend it to Azure.

Compared to other products in the market, the Azure AD deployment is the fastest. Depending on the size of the organization, it could take weeks or months to deploy.

For an organization of 10,000 users, there might be a team of five to six people supporting AD for day-to-day things.

Pricing-wise, they offer a stepladder approach. You can start with the lowest level features, then start increasing based on new requirements.

I have not really tried any other products, so I wouldn't be able to compare it with other stuff.

Start small, then expand it. When your organization wants to add Azure AD, you can try it on a smaller scale first.

I would rate it as eight out of 10. I am unfamiliar with other products in this market. That is why I am compelled to give it eight out of 10.

BDO is a network of firms and a firm is what we call a country. So, we are present in about 160 countries. I am involved in BDO Global, which is not really a firm in the sense that we don't deal directly with clients, but BDO Global hosts IT services for all those 160 countries. A couple of those solutions are a worldwide audit solution that our firms use for financial audits for customers. We have a globally running portal solution, which firms are using to collaborate with our customers directly. All these services are basically based on Azure AD for authentication and authorization. This has been a lifesaver for us, because BDO firms are legally independent, so, we don't have a single identity store worldwide, like other big companies potentially do. We created an IAM solution based on Azure AD that ties all 160 dispersed identity stores back into one. We use that to give access to our services that we run globally.

Azure AD doesn't really give you a version. You just need to take the version as-is because it is a service that Microsoft delivers as a SaaS service. So, we don't have a lot of influence over the version that we use.

Besides tying together all authentications for our 160 countries, it has also been instrumental in getting the collaboration going between our firm countries since normally they are quite isolated. Also, their IT firms are quite isolated. So, Azure AD has made sure that we can collaborate with each other in multiple different systems: the global portal, the Audit application, and Office 365. This allows us to collaborate closer together, even though we are still separated as different countries.

Because it is an identity store, it handles all our authentication. We also use it with a combination of conditional access, which is a way to limit people's authentication or authorization based on where they are, the compliance of their device, and on a whole bunch of other variables that we can set. So, it definitely has been influential as well on the security side. Because it is a SaaS, you have central management over that. You can see all the logins and get reports on who signs in from where. 

There is a lot of artificial intelligence in Azure AD that can monitor behavior of users. If users behave in a strange way, then the authentication can be blocked. For example, if you have a user logging in from China, but it looks like the same user is logging in from America just a few seconds apart. That is a seemingly risky behavior that Azure AD flags for you, then you can block that behavior or have the user provide you with a second factor of authentication. So, there are a lot of security features that come with Azure AD too.

In our scenario, we use a lot of the business-to-business (B2B) features in Azure AD, which allows us to tie multiple Azure AD instances together. That is what we heavily use because every firm or country has their own Azure AD instance. We tie those together by using the B2B functionality in Azure AD. So, that is the most valuable part for us right now.

It has been very instrumental towards a lot of services we run, especially on the single sign-on side. For example, we have 160 countries that all run their own IT but we still are able to provide users with a single sign-on experience towards global applications. So, they have a certain set of accounts that they get from their local IT department, then they use exactly the same account and credentials to sign into global services. For the user, it has been quite instrumental in that space. It is about efficiency, but also about users not having to remember multiple accounts and passwords since it is all single sign-on. Therefore, the single sign-on experience for us has been the most instrumental for the end user experience.

We are using a whole bunch of features:

• We are using privileged identity management, which is also an Azure AD feature. This allows us to give just-in-time, just enough access to privileged accounts. For example, normally you have a named account and you get a few roles based on that named account. If that is a very privileged role, that role always sits on your account all the time. When your account is compromised and the role is on the account, the people that compromise your account have that role. With privileged identity management, I can assign a role to a certain account for a specific amount of time and also for a specific amount of privileges, e.g., I can give somebody global administrator access, then revoke that after an hour automatically. So, when his/her account gets compromised, that role is not present anymore. 
• We use conditional access. 
• We use access reviews, which is basically a mechanism to access reviews on Azure AD groups automatically. So, the group owner gets a notification that they need to review their group member access, and they use that to do reviews. That is all audited and locked. For our ISO process, this is a very convenient mechanism to audit your group access.

We have a custom solution now running to tie all those Azure ADs together. We use the B2B functionality for that. Improvements are already on the roadmap for Azure AD in that area. I think they will make it easier to work together between two different tenants in Azure AD, because normally one tenant is a security boundary. For example, company one has a tenant and company two has a tenant, and then you can do B2B collaboration between those, but it is still quite limited. For our use case, it is enough currently. However, if we want to extend the collaboration even further, then we need an easier way to collaborate between two tenants, but I think that is already on the roadmap of Azure AD anyway.

I have been using it for about six years.

The stability has been very good because it is an underpinning service for many things that Microsoft does:

• The underpinning identity store for Office 365.
• The underpinning identities over Azure services. 

So, the stability has been very good. We haven't had major issues with Azure AD so far.

On the global side, we have around two to three FTEs aligned to this. On the firm side, in the countries, FTE's are aligned to managing identity as well. These FTE numbers differ per firm. In our case, there are about two to three FTEs who are aligned to this. That is normally probably not what you would need, but since we run some custom code around this to be able to do the B2B process, we need about two to three FTEs.

Scalability is not a problem. We don't have to control that because Microsoft does it as a SaaS. However, we have never seen any real performance issues on the authentication stuff. I think they handle that under the hood. Since it is such an important service for them, they keep the scalability quite well. We don't have any scaling concerns. We also can control the scale. It is basically taken care of because it is a SaaS.

It is fully deployed to about 80,000 people worldwide.

We have Microsoft Premier Support, which has been quite good. It is quick. We are mostly into the engineering group quite quickly, and that has been good. I think they also have non-paid support, which has somewhat lower response time SLAs, but we have Premier Support.

Before, we only used local Active Directories because we were not in the cloud. Currently, in BDO Global, we are 100 percent cloud. So, we use Azure AD only.

We haven't run any other solutions than Azure AD.

The initial setup is a relatively straightforward process because Microsoft gives you a lot of guidance on how to do it. They also have a tie-in with local Active Directory. So, if you are running a local Active Directory, you can easily integrate it with Azure AD. It is also one of the more powerful features of the solution because it is a SaaS solution, but you can still tie it in with your local identity store. That makes it quite powerful because many companies, before they go to the cloud, have a local identity store, e.g., Active Directory. Microsoft has a very easy process and some tooling to make it integrate with Azure AD, so your local identities, you can still be leading, but you can sync all those identities up to Azure AD quite easily and keep the identity storage up to date.

We are exclusively using Azure AD in BDO Global. In other BDO countries, most countries use local Active Directory in combination with Azure AD.

If you look at it from a BDO country perspective, you have everything up and running in about a week, if not quicker. In our global setup, that took a little bit longer, because we had to create a solution to synchronize multiple Azure ADs towards the global one. We did that via B2B, so our setup took a little bit longer as it also involved some custom development. If you only deploy Azure AD from a single company perspective, then it should be a relatively quick process.

Deployment is not that hard because it is a SaaS solution, so you don't have to deploy any infrastructure. All that is taken care of by the solution itself. It is a matter of configuring first-time use, then setting up a sync between your own identity store and Azure AD, which is quite an easy process. If you read through the documentation, then you can have that sync running in about a day.

We mostly did the implementation and the custom coding ourselves in combination with people from Microsoft.

The ROI has been quite good because we looked at competitors as well, Ping and Okta, but their license fees were quite high. Also, Azure AD can meet all our use cases. In the beginning, we only used the free version, so that was quite cheap to run. We had some custom code that we needed to develop, but that was due to our specific use case. Overall, the return on investment has been very positive. The solution is not very expensive to run. It is quite stable. For us, it brings a whole lot of capabilities to provide people with a single sign-on experience across the world.

Compared to other big vendors over the past six years, I think we are close to saving $5 million on FTEs and licensing, which is substantial.

MS has a free version of Azure AD as well. So, if you don't do a lot of advanced stuff, then you can use the free version, which is no cost at all because it is underpinning Office 365. 

Some of the services that I mentioned, like conditional access, privileged identity management, and access reviews, come with a certain premium license per user. We negotiated those license fees in what we call a GEA. This is a global Microsoft contract that we have. So, the pricing seems to be quite fair. If I compare it to its competitors, Azure AD is a lot cheaper.

Because Microsoft gives it to you as a SaaS, so there are no infrastructure costs whatsoever that you need to incur. If you use the free version, then it is free. If you use the advanced features (that we use), it is a license fee per user. 

Premier Support is an added cost, but they do it based on the amount of services that you consume. We don't have it specifically for Azure AD because we run a lot of Microsoft technologies. We have an overall Premier Support contract, which is an additional cost. 

We looked at many different vendors for identity because our identity store is quite complicated within BDO, because you don't have that single identity store across all the countries like you see in many other global companies. So, we had a strategy. We looked at other products that could potentially do the same. However, the features that Azure AD gave us the option to do this as we wanted to do it. The other tools that we looked at, Okta and PingFederate, were not able to do the same thing for us back in the day. This is especially because we have many different identity stores within the BDO countries that have to be under the control of those countries. BDO Global cannot and is not allowed to control those identities. We need to allow the countries to control those identities themselves, but we still need a way to tie those altogether on the global side. Azure AD was the only solution that could do that for us.

From a BDO Global perspective, we don't. The firms and countries own their identities and the management around them, and they also need full control on those identities. We as BDO Global are not even allowed to control those, but we do need to provide them with single sign-on experiences. So, Azure AD is the service that allow us to do that. 

Our primary use case was about that control, which is a very specific use case because countries need to control their own identity stores and we are not allowed to control that from a global perspective. Specifically, the control requirement and still being able to have that single sign-on experience led us to Azure AD. The other big vendors that we looked at couldn't do that.

This solution is a prerequisite with some of the bigger Microsoft services, so if you want to use Office 365, Dynamics, etc., then you need Azure AD. However, it is also quite good to use for other services as well because they are currently supporting tens of thousands of other applications that you can sign into with an Azure account. So, it is not only for Microsoft Office, and I think that is probably a misconception in many people's heads. You can use it for many other cloud services as well as a single sign-on solution. My biggest point would be that it can be used for Microsoft services, but people tend to forget that you can also use it for many other services. In that sense, it is just an identity store that you can use across many services, not only Microsoft.

It continues to be one of our primary fundamental services around authentication, so we will keep using it in the future. We are planning to reduce the amount of custom code that we need to tie all these things together. Microsoft has a few things on the roadmap coming up there. We hope that we can decrease the amount of custom code that we need to run around this. The custom code is mostly about synchronizing identities from 160 countries to us. Microsoft will bring some stuff out-of-the-box there so we can hopefully decrease the custom code. It is a fundamental solution for us for identity and single sign-on, so we definitely plan to keep using it.

The biggest thing we learned is that the security boundaries are shifting from what used to be networks, firewalls, and data centers that you owned yourself. The security boundary is more shifting to identity in these cases because people are using cloud services. They use a single identity, and in this case, Azure identity to sign into those cloud services. You are not always controlling where people are signing in from anymore because those services live in the cloud. Where you used to have servers running in your data center, you had far more control on the network, firewalls, and all that stuff to keep those services secure. You now have to rely much more on the identity because the services are running in the cloud. You don't always have control over the network, so people can sign in from every device.

The security boundary is really shifting towards identity. Azure AD gives you a lot of options to secure your identity in a proper way. We use multifactor authentication, the conditional access piece, and privileged identity management, which are all services that Azure AD provides and quite hard to implement on a traditional Active Directory. 

I would rate this solution as 10 out of 10. It is instrumental to everything that we do.

We primarily use the solution for our AD. Azure AD and Microsoft Entra ID are basically the same, they are currently rebranding. I basically manage users and permissions.

It's made it easy to manage our users. It's also easy to deploy across the company. It pulls over the Exchange and does everything together in one go. You just have to get the licenses.

The login process is easy. It's very user-friendly for users. We can check the logins and handle user management. It's quite simple and easy to use.

It provides a single pane of glass for managing users and access. It's easy for users to handle multiple devices. It makes the sign-on experience better. It can easily teach users how to use the authenticator app.

I'm able to get reports on the database to help give visibility to security. I don't handle security, however. I'm there for support. People can use the data to perform investigations. 

The ID is quite useful. The Azure ID admin center can manage all identity access tasks across an organization. We can easily set up users. It's something you need in every company. Most of the basic stuff is done for users.

The Verified ID is useful for authentication. You can set it in your privacy settings. 

The solution has helped us save time.

The experience overall has been good for employees when they need to get an ID. If you need an extra license, it's just a matter of clicking one button.

We'd like to be able to link to non-Mircosft products, like Linux. There isn't much open source that links up with Azure. Most open source, however, can link up with AWS.

I've been using the solution for four years now. 

The solution is stable. it's dependable. 

We have about 100 users on the solution. 

It's easy to scale up or down. It does what it needs to do. You can always edit or delete resources as well. 

We haven't had any issues. Therefore, I have not really dealt with technical support. 

Positive

I was also working with Microsoft Active Directory on-prem. I'm new to this company; I've worked with other things in other companies before. 

I've used Okta in the past. I find the Azure pricing more user-friendly and I find it's better in terms fo team collaboration. For example, with this, you can also implement Microsoft Defender which can help you monitor users as well.

We have it deployed to the cloud; it's too expensive to maintain on-prem hardware. 

I was not directly involved in the deployment of the solution. 

Only two people have to maintain the product. 

The pricing is expensive. It's in US dollars. I'd rate the affordability of pricing six out of ten. 

I'm not sure if the company evaluated other options. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. My advice would be to stay virtual and not on-prem or you'll have to pay more.