Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We use it for all of our internal colleagues. Every single user is synced from our internal on-prem directory to Azure AD. Every single user has a presence in Azure AD and that account or identity is then used for at least 10 to 15 different applications. They directly query what groups they're a member of within Azure AD. We use Azure AD for at least 15 different applications.

It has improved our security posture. Not only with the password feature but there were also things like conditional access, applications within Azure that you can use for better access. You can put conditional access rules in front of those applications, which means that either the device that they're accessing it with has to have a certain up-to-date version of antivirus, it has to have all of its Windows updates, or they have to use multi-factor authentication. All of those nice-to-have features help our security posture a lot.

When users are in Active Directory they can use single sign-on, which means once they've signed on to their machine, they then don't have to sign on again when they access things like their email. They can just go to those URLs. Because those applications are attached to our Azure AD and to our Azure tenant, they can just go to the applications. Those applications know who they are because they have a single sign-on enabled. So that has helped them so they don't have to turn on passwords when they have to access all these different applications.

Being able to integrate with third-party solutions is the most valuable feature. These are solutions that produced software as a service and we haven't then had to bring that service to our own data or in our own directory. We can use our Azure identity to connect to their solution. Being able to connect to third-party applications in these identities is the best thing we've found.

Being able to use Azure AD means that you can use some of the Azure AD security features like Advanced Password Protection. As well as querying your normal password requirements like lengths and complexity, Azure AD has a feature in which you can put specific words. It can be words to do with your company, words to do with your company location, or words that a lot of your employees would otherwise use. You can disallow them. It's very good at making more obvious passwords, ones they're not allowed to use anymore. That's a good feature.

It has something called Dynamic Groups so that when a user joins the company and they get added to specific groups, Azure AD will add them dynamically to other groups that will give them access to some of the base applications.

We have certain sets of software that they have to be able to access. Instead of somebody who deals with new users having to add them into 20 different application groups, you need access to this, this, and this. The Dynamic Group update feature from Azure AD means that you can just put them in one group and say that they have a role, and it will automatically then add them to about six or seven other groups, giving them default access to other things as well, instead of having to do that. It means there's a lot less manual work when you get new employees.

The conditional access rules are a little limiting. There's greater scope for the variety of rules and conditions you could put in that rules around a more factual authentication for other users. If you have an Azure AD setup, you can then connect to other people's Azure AD, but you don't have a huge amount of control in terms of what you can do. Greater control over guest users and guest access would be better. It's pretty good as it is but that could be improved.

I have been using Active Directory in my current role for around six months and in a previous role for three years. I recently moved companies about three months ago. Before that, I was working for another company. I was there for about five years and for at least half that time I was using Azure AD. 

We use the latest version. Azure AD doesn't really have version numbers, it's an evolving platform. In my current role, we're on the latest version of it. 

Stability is pretty good. In the lifetime of me using it, there have been outages of certain features within Azure. We use multi-factor authentication. There have been times when that authentication feature has gone down and people couldn't access things that required that when they log on. That has happened maybe twice in the last 15 or so years. So it's pretty good. The uptime is pretty good, but it's not 100%.

The company I used to previously work for had 90,000 users that were synced. That was nothing. There was room for loads more. I think they have a limit of a million or something objects within Azure AD. That's something you can ask to have increased if that's a requirement. Scalability is pretty unlimited. There is no issue there at all.

In the company I used to work for there were 90,000 people connected to Azure AD. As soon as they logged on, they were using Azure AD. In the current company, it's nearer five or 6,000, but all of those accounts have access to Azure AD. 

There are various roles including administrators who will have the ability to change any settings like sync settings and any settings on an individual user. Then we'll have a second line, which will be able to change some of the settings within a user's group and be able to reset their password or add them to different applications. There is a first-line service desk level set of users who will only have the ability to reset passwords, but if there's anything more complicated than that they'll pass it on. There are about three different levels of access that we currently have. There is level three and two access for not too difficult issues and then level one for password resets.

In the last place I worked, there were eight of us who took care of Azure AD which was for 90,000 people in Azure. There were people actively looking at the syncing engine, which does the sync between the two domains and there were four of us who managed that. We were called identity technical experts. So of a company of 90,000, we needed four of us, but that was only so that when people went on holiday, other people could still do the work. 

It's extensively used in that everybody has an account in Azure AD. I'm guessing we don't use all the features that are available. We still have our own mailboxes on-premise rather than in Azure. I would think that would be something in the future that they would look to move some or all of our mailboxes into Azure. But we all have a presence in Azure, so we are using a lot of the features, but I believe there are still a lot more we could use. 

Their support was excellent for the deployment. They were really good. It depends a little bit on who you get at the other end and the nature of your question, but with the Azure AD stuff, we got through to experts who were able to give us the right answer straight away. They were very good at that point.

We didn't use any other cloud solution. That was the first one that we used in the cloud. There's an on-premise Active Directory which is an additional Microsoft Active Directory. And the whole point of Azure AD is that it does connect to that. We haven't used any other directory service apart from those. The on-prem version of Active Directory I've used for 20 years. I haven't used any other active directory service. I'm sure there are others, but these are the main ones.

It's a level of responsibility, which is being passed over to Microsoft, that we no longer have to deal with. Certainly, the companies I've worked with were very happy for those bits of the technology being looked after by someone else. And so we were just in charge of the data that's in there rather than all the other, not-so-interesting things like backup and such.

It's moving the responsibility of the not very exciting bits over to Microsoft and their very good SLA. You can just concentrate on the bits that you're interested in.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. The only complex thing is syncing your on-premise active directory into Azure AD. It's not overly complicated and they also give you very good support. It's not very difficult to set up.

The deployment took a couple of months in the end because we just wanted to do it at a pace that we were comfortable with. We did some initial tests on users. We synced them into Azure AD, made sure they could access what we thought they could access, and make sure they could still do the same job that they could do before. Then we synced across another set of test users, then a bigger test, and then eventually synced everybody else. We did it over the course of a month. Technically you could do it in less than a week, but we just wanted to be cautious and make sure that it worked as we expected.

In terms of the implementation strategy, we have two different Azure Active Directory setups. We have one in our development area, so we did the development area one first. We sure we worked out how to do the syncing correctly, making sure we can see all the attributes that were on the on-prem AD that were then turning up in Azure AD. And then once we did a development one and that worked as we expected, we then did the production one. We did it in a step-by-step approach. We did a small set of test users, a larger set of test users, and then the entire company. It was a phased approach.

We did the deployment ourselves. We spoke directly to Microsoft when we had a couple of queries because we had an enterprise agreement with them so we can raise a number of support tickets. There were a couple of questions we had about certain features, but the actual setup and deployment of it we did ourselves.

We've certainly seen returns on investment in terms of some of the security features around Azure. We've seen threats that have been detected much earlier. Previously, threat detection and that sort of thing was more of a response rather than doing anything preemptive. Something would happen and we'd then fix it. Whereas now in Azure AD, we've seen recommendations and those sort of things coming through from Microsoft saying, "You've got these accounts, these have all got weak passwords. We recommend getting these changed for end-users before they get hacked." We saw a marked decrease in the number of attacks and breaches against our credentials when we introduced multi-factor authentication for the entire company.

Had anybody, for whatever reason, passed on or shared their username or password, those could then be used to get into our services. Now with multi-factor authentication, we've seen a marked decrease in the number of threats we've seen come through. So there are some marked benefits of the security features.

SSPR, self-service password reset has also realized ROI for us. In the past, 60 to 70% of the calls coming into our help desk guys were for password resets. A large chunk, 50 to 60% of those are gone because people can just go to the URL we've shared with them and reset their password themselves without having to phone us, which means that our service desk guys can deal with real issues rather than just somebody to put on their password. So we saw a large decrease in password resets. We're still trying to get rid of even more of those, trying to make their job even easier, but we've seen a large reduction in the number of password request changes to our service desk.

There are various levels of licenses. There are things called E3 and E5 licenses. E5 licenses come with more features but aren't required for some of the kinds of users who are just using email and Office. They only need an E3 license.

Pricing depends on the size of your organization and the deal you get with Microsoft. If you're a public sector, rather than a private sector, you get a good deal. Academic sectors get very good deals. The vast majority of our users use E5. But we're a Microsoft partner who resells their product so we get favorable rates because of that.

They have various pricing levels and the higher level you buy, the more features you get within Azure. The basic one is perfectly good for most customers. The more advanced and greater security features come with the higher pricing. And so customers who require that like military, banking, government or something are willing to pay that. The private sector generally pays more than the public sector. I know some colleagues who work in the academic sector get extremely good deals because Microsoft is very keen to have academic institutions on board. If you're working in academia or you work in the public sector, you will get a much better deal than you would in the private sector, but that's just business.

An E5 or E3 license is on a per-user basis. So the number of users you sync into Azure AD is the number of licenses you need to report that is going to be consumed by the end-users. It's a per-user per-year license.

The only other cost you get with Microsoft over and above the license cost of using Azure is the cost of using their operating system and software. So if you use Windows, then you can pay for your Windows licenses again through Azure. And if you use Office, meaning Excel, Word, and all that other stuff, you can pay an extra bit and they'll get a 365 license for the entire suite of offices.

If you're buying an E5 Office plus Windows, then you'll get a greater discount than if you were buying those separately. Microsoft will charge you for what you actually use. So if you've got a user who isn't using Office, or isn't using Windows for whatever reason, but they are consuming services within Azure, then you just give them an Azure license. Microsoft will split up and you buy a license based on what you actually use.

There are a couple of other options. There's obviously Amazon AWS and there's now Google GCP. I'm not sure either of those particular cloud providers had a particularly enterprise-level directory service. At the point when we migrated our users to Azure, I believe Azure was the only one that was an enterprise standard. Whilst the other ones have options, they weren't really suitable for the size of enterprise that we were running. 

My advice would be to talk to Microsoft or a partner of Microsoft who will deploy it for you. You can do it yourself, it is absolutely possible but seek advice. Because the more users you sync into Azure, the more you have to pay for their licenses and not everybody has to be using Azure. Sync only accounts you need to, but in all cases, I would seek advice from a Microsoft partner or Microsoft themselves. They'll be able to talk through what you actually need, what you require, and then the best way to implement that. Whether that's syncing your entire user base or whether that's syncing a small subset of them because they're the only ones that are going to consume the services required.

I have learned two main lessons from using Azure AD. First, the introduction of multi-factor authentication. It was such a marked difference in the number of security incidents we had. There was such a reduction. If you have Azure AD, switch on multi-factor authentication, not just for the admin accounts and the highly privileged accounts that can access all the bits, but switch it on for everybody. It is a pain initially, while people get themselves set up. But once it's done the number of incidents you have relating to people losing their credentials is markedly reduced. It's a massive win.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. There are some things they can improve on, but those improvements are pretty small beans compared to what they've done.

We're using Azure Active Directory to get authentication from Office 365, and along with this, we're using it for infrastructure-as-a-service authentication. For all the virtual machines hosted on Azure right now, we're getting authentication from Azure Active Directory.

In addition to these, we're using some other SaaS or software-as-a-service products such as SAP Ariba and SAP SuccessFactors. For these specific products also, I have integrated single sign-on via Azure Active Directory.

We're also using e-procurement solutions such as Tejari and SAP Ariba. To get authentication of my guest users, who are my partners, vendors, or external collaborators, we create their guest accounts on Azure Active Directory. They come into our applications through that. We get a secure channel to provide access to the external parties on our tenant through Azure Active Directory. These are the basic use cases of Azure Active Directory.

After moving to Azure Active Directory, life becomes very easy, not only for the administrator and IT people but for the end-users as well. They've now got a single sign-on. Previously, our end-users had to remember multiple account IDs and passwords, and they had to enter the relevant account ID and password for each application, whereas now, they have a single identity across all the applications provisioned in our landscape.

It's helpful for security and compliance. Security is a big concern right now, and we're very sensitive about it. I am from the Oil and Gas sector, and this is something that's very critical for us. Additionally, we have external contributors, such as partners, vendors, and technical consultants, who need access to our resources from outside the organization. Azure Active Directory provides some very good features for that such as guest user access and limited user access. 

It has default integration with all Microsoft products such as SharePoint, Power BI, Power Apps, Power Automate, and obviously, the infrastructure as the service landscape of Azure. This integration is surely amazing.

Conditional access is amazing. I have a success story to share for the conditional access feature. About six or seven years ago, we identified a cyber attack that was coming from certain IPs from Nigeria on our tenant, and through that, some of our users were compromised. We blocked all Nigerian IPs using Azure conditional access and saved our users. It was something amazing and life-saving for us. 

The conditional access feature complements the zero-trust strategy. It makes our environment more secure. It makes our environment more reliable as far as the whole security landscape is concerned.

We use Microsoft Endpoint Manager. Initially, we were not using it, but later on, we started to use Microsoft Endpoint, which was previously known as Microsoft Advanced Threat Protection. Implementing secure policies of Microsoft Endpoint, advanced threat protection, and conditional access provides us with a very safe and kind of sandbox environment. This combination protects us from those who are accessing our environment from unpatched devices, pirated applications, and applications with security loopholes.

We're also using Microsoft Intune to save our corporate devices and provide a secure zone for our users to access corporate resources and applications.

Personally, I'm a great fan of Azure Active Directory due to the security and compliance features that are there in the classic or default Azure Active Directory. 

The conditional access feature is absolutely great through which we provide access to users on the basis of a certain device, a certain geographical location, a certain set of IPs, or any other criteria that we can define via a set of rules. 

The auditing of Azure Active Directory is fantastic, and its integration with Cloud App Security is something amazing because we can get complete visibility of our environment through Cloud App Security. It also helps us a lot with our yearly audits and monthly reporting.

There is a lot of room for improvement in terms of its integration with the local Active Directory. There are some gaps in terms of the local Active Directory through which Microsoft is syncing our environment from our data center. There should be the availability of custom attributes on Azure Active Directory. In addition, there should be the availability of security groups and distribution groups that are residing on the local Active Directory. Currently, they are not replicated on Azure Active Directory by default.

There should also be a provision for Azure Active Directory to support custom-built applications. 

I've been using this solution for the last 12 years.

It's very stable.

It's very scalable. It's being used in companies with 64 users as well as in companies with 16,000 users. For both companies, it's working perfectly. It's a very good product.

My environment is based on multiple things. We're using Office 365 in the software-as-a-service mode. We're using Azure infrastructure in the infrastructure-as-a-service mode. We have integrated our Azure Active Directory with multiple third-party solutions such as Oracle Aconex, SAP S4HANA, SAP Ariba, SAP SuccessFactors, and Tejari. Along with this, we're providing authentication services to our third-party or external vendors, contractors, and guest users through Azure Active Directory. It's in hybrid mode. It's in the private cloud, software-as-a-service, and infrastructure-as-a-service environments. There are multiple environments.

Back in 2010 or 2011, when Microsoft launched it initially, it was very good, but since COVID or post-COVID, the quality has reduced significantly. Before COVID, it was very good. We would normally get very good engineers on call. We got support from the European zones, but since COVID, their support services have been significantly compromised. The quality of engineers or the quality of SLAs is not up to the mark. 

I was one of the people here in Pakistan who started the cloud. Microsoft has published three case studies of mine on the cloud during the last ten years. Over the years, I've seen that the overall support model of Microsoft Cloud has been compromised. I'd rate their support a six out of ten. 

Positive

We were using the local Active Directory previously. From day one, we've been die-hard fans of Active Directory. Until 2011 or 2012, we used the local Active Directory that was hosted in my own data center, and now, because we're in a hybrid environment, we're managing local Active Directory, and we're managing Azure Active Directory. We're managing both.

We got Azure Active Directory because we moved to Office 365, public cloud, infrastructure as a service, and software as a service. We needed a single sign-on and integration with some third-party cloud products such as SAP Ariba, SAP SuccessFactors, and Tejari. 

Last month, we did the very first integration in Pakistan with Oracle Aconex. It's one of the biggest engineering document management suites in the world. We integrated Azure Active Directory with EDMS, which was really commendable. It was something that was done for the first time in Pakistan.

We're using Azure Active Directory with Office 365, which is a public cloud. The same Azure Active Directory is integrated with Azure infrastructure's private cloud, so the same Active Directory is serving in multiple scenarios. Through the same Azure Active Directory, we have integrated with the custom applications that are hosted on other public clouds such as Oracle Aconex, SAP S4HANA, SAP Ariba, SAP SuccessFactors, and Tejari. So, we're using it in the hybrid mode to sync our local Active Directory. From that hybrid mode, it's providing authentication to the users for Office 365 and it's providing services for the users who are using Windows virtual desktop. On the other side, for the third party, we're also using Azure Active Directory.

I deployed it myself. The initial setup was complex when we were implementing it around twelve years ago, but now, it's very simple. When we started this journey, it took us six months to integrate our local Active Directory with Azure Active Directory. We worked with three different partners. Two of them failed, and then Microsoft Pakistan got involved with us. Through their Dubai-based partner, we successfully integrated our Azure Active Directory with our local, on-premises Active Directory. We got success with the third partner, but overall, it took us six months. Nowadays, the hybrid configuration and the integration of Azure Active Directory with the local Active Directory is a piece of cake.

In terms of maintenance, because it's software as a service, Microsoft is managing it for us. We don't take any backup, etc. It's just managed by Microsoft.

We got a very good ROI when we compare it with what we were using around ten years ago. It's a much improved and cost-efficient product in terms of cloud provision.

It's pretty good. We're using the native features. It's bundled with our Office 365 licenses. We aren't paying anything extra for Azure Active Directory. It's pretty good for us because it's complementary to Office 365. We're only paying for Office 365.

We checked Google Suite. We checked its identity mechanism, but it was not as per our requirements.

It's a very good product. It's a stable product. I'd highly recommend it.

Overall, I'd rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of ten.

We use it for access and identity management.

Microsoft Entra ID has improved the way we administer the technology. One strong capability is our ability to use single sign-on. Using identity is an important component of our security, so we have been able to consolidate. Instead of having to manage users for different applications, we use single sign-on. We use Microsoft Entra ID to be the core of identity management across all applications. We have the capability to do so, so it reduces the burden of onboarding, offboarding, and giving different permissions because we have a centralized way to handle that.

Microsoft Entra ID does a pretty good job of providing a single pane of glass for managing user access. For zero trust and the more modern security approaches, it is key to have a single pane of glass. We are able to be very regimented and have processes that are repeatable and reproducible. It provides that consistency, so it is easier to be very consistent.

Microsoft Entra ID has helped to save time for our IT administrators, but I would have a hard time quantifying that. We do not have a lot of users. We are dealing with hundreds of users and not thousands or tens of thousands of users. We are able to use logic and rules to handle most permissioning versus having to do administrative things manually. There is less touch. We touch it only when we have to troubleshoot. If we have a good set of rules, it handles what we need to handle.

The user management groups are valuable. It is a pretty basic product, but user management, in general, is valuable with the ability to differentiate between business lines and add different policies, group-based management, and dynamic user groups.

Allowing for more customization would be very useful. There is a limited metadata capability. When you look at a user, there are only six pieces of information you can see, but organizations are way more complex, so having that metadata available and being able to use that for dynamic user groups and other policies would be very helpful.

We have been using Microsoft Entra ID for six years.

For the most part, it is very stable. I am not worried about its stability.

It is very scalable.

Typically, the people who provide us support want to provide good service, but overall, there is a lot of room for improvement because the subject matter experts basically follow the script, and sometimes, they neglect to listen to what we are asking for. We would have already gone through the steps, and we explain it, but we have to repeat ourselves multiple times.

In my past experiences, I have used Okta and the other ones. In my current organization, I have not used any other solution. When I came in, thankfully, we had Azure AD. We stuck with it, and we made that the primary. It is not perfect for sure, but it works very well in the Microsoft ecosystem. It works well together with Intune and other Microsoft solutions. Because we have a single stack in Microsoft, it works very well with Intune. In the past, I have had different identity and access management, and then you have interoperability issues. Even though Microsoft Entra ID is not perfect, there is less of that. You get one vendor, and usually, things work out eventually.

I was not involved in its deployment in my current organization, but I was spearheaded into bringing from a basic use case to a lot more security and a lot more automation and manageability.

Initially, the initial setup was very basic, and then we modernized it and improved it. We used a lot more policy, and dynamic user groups were a big aspect of that single sign-on in the app management, app registration, and various other aspects.

We took a little bit of external help to make sure that our approach was optimized.

It is difficult to quantify that. Because there is the cost of switching, usually, it ends up being a wash.

Pricing could always be better. You pay the premium for Microsoft. Sometimes, it is worth it, and at other times, you wish to have more licensing options, especially for smaller companies.

We are currently not evaluating other options.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID an eight out of ten.

We migrated about 3,000 computers from on-prem Active Directory to Azure Active Directory or Azure AD. 

These are still early days, but we are certain that it will improve our organization as we move away from on-prem Active Directory.

It provides a single pane of glass for managing user access, but we have to get more into it to be able to say that for sure. We have got so many different tools. It would be nice to have less tools. We are starting to take a look at how to consolidate tools.

It will definitely help to save time for our IT administrators.

It has not yet helped to save our organization money. It is too early for that.

The way the laptops are joined is valuable. We can take advantage of that in terms of being able to log in and do things. It is easier to change passwords or set things up.

I would like to dive into some of the things that we saw today around the workflows at this Microsoft event. I cannot say that they need to make it better because I do not have much experience with it, but something that is always applicable to Microsoft is that they need to be able to integrate with their competitors. If you look at IDP, they do not integrate with Okta.

I have been using this solution for about six months. It was not called Entra ID then. It was called Azure AD.

Our dealings have been fine. We do not deal with them so much. When we have to open something, our account managers help us out.

We were on on-prem AD. We moved to Azure AD because of a merger. We were purchased by a larger company, so we are moving on to their domain.

It was in the middle of the road. It was not the easiest thing, and it was also not the hardest thing.

We took the help of a company. They did a good job. They helped us to move a huge amount of data.

It is in line. Because we are so early, we have not had to come back on a cycle where we are having to negotiate again.

I would rate Microsoft Entra ID a nine out of ten. It is very good.

Microsoft Authenticator is a third-party application used to authenticate users in our Microsoft environment, such as accessing emails or applications like Excel, Word, or any other application. It is also used for online login purposes. The configuration process is simple from the admin side; we just need to enable it for the user. The user will receive a notification on their mobile device and then needs to download the Microsoft Authenticator app. They can add their account by entering their username and password. Once this is done, the configuration is complete.

While using any applications in the environment, users need to authenticate using Microsoft Authenticator. They will receive a one-time password that expires in thirty seconds, which they must use for authentication. One advantage of using Microsoft Authenticator is that it ensures the security of user accounts. Even if someone tries to hack or authenticate into another person's Microsoft account, they will be unable to do so without the password. The user will receive a notification if someone attempts to access their account and can choose whether to grant them access or not. If any unauthorized access is detected, we will investigate to identify the person behind the authentication attempt.

Microsoft Authenticator is highly secure. It is connected to its own servers. Using this application employs encryption methods, and the user has the right to access it. Additionally, we can utilize the biometric fingerprint tool for authentication, ensuring that only one person has access to it. This feature is extremely beneficial.

The cost of licensing always has room for improvement.

I have been using Microsoft Authenticator for three years.

Microsoft Authenticator is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward. We downloaded it from the Google Play store and used a name and password. That's all it takes, and we're ready to go. The configuration duration is set on an admin site, but the actual configuration must be done on the end devices themselves. This can include mobile devices, tablets, or any other device that we can use, and takes about ten minutes to complete.

We have observed a 60 percent return on investment with Microsoft Authenticator, which provides us with peace of mind, knowing that there is no unauthorized access occurring.

Microsoft Authenticator is included in the package when we purchase a license from Microsoft.

I rate Microsoft Authenticator ten out of ten.

We have 120 users. The solution is used daily and is required whenever a Microsoft account needs authentication to ensure that only the data owner or email owner has the proper authentication to access the mailbox or application.

I will advise people to continue using the Microsoft Authenticator because it provides security and data protection. From a cybersecurity perspective, it is beneficial to use the Microsoft Authenticator for the authentication of Microsoft products.

We primarily use the solution for most of our enterprise identity management. 

It's improved our company through the security policies. It's helped improve our security posture. 

It's pretty easy to implement. In most of the apps nowadays, it has the ability to use multifactor authentication, SSO.

The control is great. It offers good conditional access.

It helps with managing user access via one pane of glass in most cases. 

The security policies we are applying are pretty well structured. 

The solution is nice to use. Microsoft did a good job.

My assessment on Microsoft EntraID admin center for managing all identity and access as our organization. It's great. It's very well organized, pretty straightforward, and easy to use. It's not just that it's easy to use, it's very intuitive. Everything is easy to find. 

We use Microsoft Entra ID conditional access features and improve the robustness of our zero-trust strategy to verify users. 

The permission management feature is good. 

The visibility and control are very good. The whole intro ID concept is pretty intuitive. Even if you have never used this and you have some experience in IT, you will be able to handle the solution easily.

It's helped our IT department save time. It also helps with speeding up processes. I can't speak to the exact amount of time saved per week, however.

The solution helps the company save money. 

It's positively affected the employee user experience. 

It's just been renamed. That said, I can't speak of room for improvement. There may be areas that could be better, however, I haven't thought too much about that. 

I would change the device access a bit. It's very difficult. I would add some features. I would like to be able to authenticate Wi-Fi users using the Azure ID. However, my understanding is it needs to be from both sides, from the vendor that is creating devices for the Wi-Fi and for the networking part and Microsoft. 

The company has been using the solution since before I arrived. I have used it for around four or five years. 

The solution is stable. I've never seen big issues. It's pretty much a stable product. 

Sometimes Microsoft has small issues, however, nothing that would cause the entire company to not be able to work for a whole day. 

More than 1,000 people are currently using the solution. 

It is a scalable solution for sure. 

I've never used technical support. 

I've used a few different solutions. Mostly I've used Active Directory. It does the same thing; it has just been renamed. 

I was not a part of the implementation. It was done before I joined the company. 

It may require a bit of maintenance, however, it's not a task that is part of my department. 

I don't deal with pricing. It may state the cost online. 

I did not evaluate other options. 

I'm a user.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I'd advise others to use it. Even the free tier has a lot of features that even a small company would benefit from. 

We use it as the Active Directory on the cloud. We have the systems on-premises and on the cloud. We connect the AD data to Azure. We have a single sign-on service on multi-cloud. We use the single sign-on feature on, for example, AWS.

In terms of the version, we use it as a service, and it is always updated to the latest version. 

Microsoft Entra ID helps to synchronize information from on-premise Active Directory. There are security features such as multifactor authentication. We can also use a single sign-on to connect with the other application on the cloud. 

It helps our admins to have more security. It is helpful for authentication methods, log checking, and audit trails in case of security concerns. However, it has not saved them time.

Microsoft Entra ID has not helped to save our organization money, but it helps to improve security.

The security features, multi-factor authentication, and service management features are valuable.

Microsoft Entra ID provides a single pane of glass for managing user access. Its menus are properly categorized, and they make it easy to use for our work and processes.

One thing that they need to improve is the cost. It already has a lot of features, but more protection of the identity would be beneficial for customers.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. In our environment, we mostly have Microsoft solutions such as Microsoft 365, email, OneDrive, SharePoint, Power Apps, etc. Entra ID is deployed across multiple locations for multiple users. We have a Microsoft 365 license for all employees. We have two admins who take care of configuration and monitoring for security and data loss prevention. 

We have plans to increase its usage.

I have not contacted their support.

We did not use any other similar solution previously.

I was not involved in its deployment. 

It is costly.

I would recommend this solution to others. Overall, I would rate Microsoft Entra ID an eight out of ten.

It's something that we use every day. We're migrating all of our customers over to it.

We use it for Office 365 and Azure services.

It's a cloud service. You do not depend on local identities. You can just synchronize the identities. It gives you the opportunity to use the security services that come with Office 365 and Azure. 

It does offer a single pane of glass for getting into all applications. However, we have some customers that have a hybrid environment and it depends on what applications and if the client wants them authenticated with Azure or not. In general, it's been positive for the final user experience.

We do have to manage identities on-premises in Azure and have one point of entry and the solution allows for that.

We use conditional access. That's a must for customers - to be able to verify users and devices. It helps with initiating a zero-trust policy. It's one of the main functionalities we really like. You can get granular with the policies in terms of access. 

We use conditional access in conjunction with Endpoint Manager. We also push Endpoint Manager as a solution to work with devices. That's also something that we try to push to the customers in any project. Most of the time, they go with it and like the idea of being merged with which are Endpoint Manager. Sometimes there are some customers, small customers, that maybe don't want to use that. Our position is to always use an endpoint manager.

It's helped out IT managers a lot in terms of the features on offer. I'm not sure of the exact amount of time that has been saved in general. I'm not involved in the day-to-day management from a customer's perspective. 

It's had a positive effect on the user experience. I'd rate the improvement nine out of ten. 

Support could be improved.

Okta has had more time in the business than Microsoft. I hope, in the roadmap, Microsoft eventually offers the same features as Okta. It will take some more time to mature. 

I've been using the solution for five years.

The solution is scalable. 

Customer support is good. However, it could be better sometimes. They do answer fast, however, the resolution itself is not fast. The first level of support will most likely have to move the issue to level two or three technicians and that process makes the resolution take longer.

Positive

I did not previously use a different solution. I deal strictly with Microsoft. I don't deal with any other companies. I'm dedicated to Microsoft. 

I was involved in the deployment process. It's easy for someone who's done it many times. 

In my department, we have ten to 15 colleagues that can handle these migrations or synchronizations. 

It's an easy product to maintain. 

We do have a customer that has Okta, and while we don't deal with it directly, we know what it does. We don't use it. Okta has specific features that are different from this product, however, it's not something we sell. For example, Microsoft can synchronize users from local to Azure, and not vice versa. Okta can do that, however. Also, the management lifecycle feature in Microsoft isn't as robust as Okta. 

Okta does have a lot of models, as does Microsoft. In both cases, depending on what you need, there would be a different license. 

There are not too many companies that have Okta in Spain, however, those that have would have many environments across AWS, Google, et cetera - not just Microsoft.

We're integrators. We don't use the solution ourselves. 

We do not use Permissions Management. I'm not sure if it is one functionality or a combination of several. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.