Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

We use Azure AD for sign-on security as well as for our customers' Microsoft 365 solutions. We help migrate our customers from the traditional Active Directory, and to use Exchange Online and Microsoft Teams. We use Azure AD to secure their login processes with multi-factor authentication. In some specific cases, where there are specific applications, databases, or Active Directory login information about users, we integrate Azure AD with those elements.

Multi-factor authentication really secures our environments and gives us the flexibility to use location-based policies. Azure AD also gives us a lot of flexibility in our scope of integration.

It's easy to configure Microsoft products with Azure AD. It is almost an instant integration. In hybrid installations it is a bit more complex to configure, but not that much. In short, it is good for most Microsoft customers and the products they use.

Some of the features related to authentication could be made clearer. In my last organization, I tried to integrate a third-party education solution with Azure AD, but it was a bit difficult to configure. I would like it to be easier to integrate third-party applications.

I have been using Azure AD for three or four years.

It's a stable product. I haven't encountered any problems or bugs.

The solution is very scalable.

In general, there is no problem in configuring Azure AD. It's not hard. But, as I said, configuring third-party, open-source applications with it is a little bit difficult.

We usually set aside one day to configure Azure AD for new organizations. In general, it takes one person to maintain it, perhaps two in some cases.

We have faced a few little problems in our customers' hybrid environments. Backing up the ADFS (Active Directory Federation Services) is very important, but some of our customers didn't do so and they lost their ADFS proxy servers. That is one of the important lessons I have learned. In those cases we had to reconfigure almost everything. It's simple to back up ADFS, so I would advise doing so.

But from the user's point of view, we've faced no problems. It works well.

When we access the API, we use Microsoft Authenticator. Something with potential will be saved, and if the company has some use cases to connect to some database, I will use it as well, or something along those lines.

Normally, because a third party requires it.

It provides you with security. It provides the third party with some level of security.

But vendors like myself do not appreciate it.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that is easy to use.

It is also automated.

I believe it can also be integrated into other Microsoft products, as well as more integrations with other solutions.

I have been working with Microsoft Authenticator for two years.

I am working with the most recent version.

Microsoft Authenticator is quite stable.

I would rate the stability of Microsoft Authenticator a ten out of ten.

Microsoft Authenticator is a scalable solution. 

I would rate the scalability of Microsoft Authenticator an eight out of ten.

As far as I know, we have more than 30 users in our organization. Some are senior professionals and some are developers.

I have never dealt with technical support.

I use UiPath as well as Automation Anywhere.

I started with Authenticator and then moved on to the Namespace version or class that I can import from Microsoft.

I would rate the initial setup a ten out of ten.

It was easy.

It only took a few hours to deploy.

It's an out-of-the-box deployment, but I am not the one who manages it.

One person was involved in the deployment.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. It is easy to use and it fits its purpose.

Because it is scalable and reliable, I would rate Microsoft Authenticator an eight out of ten.

We are using Azure Active Directory in our company at a group level.

Azure Active Directory has been very useful for our company, it is not difficult to use.

Azure Active Directory could improve the two-factor authentication.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for approximately four years.

The stability of Azure Active Directory is good.

Azure Active Directory is scalable.

We have approximately 1,000 users using this solution. Not everyone is using Azure Active Directory but the ones involved in the cloud are.

I have not used technical support.

The initial setup was very easy for Azure Active Directory.

My advice to others is if they're going to move to the Azure Cloud Platform, this could be a highly valuable add-on, in order to take care of authentication matters in general. It's a very useful tool and not difficult to use.

I rate Azure Active Directory an eight out of ten.

I use Authenticator across my company for controlling access to our platforms and data.

The most valuable feature is the prompt for a number so that you're sure what you're seeing is what you're agreeing to.

It would be an improvement if Authenticator made it easier to recover the app if you reboot your cellphone and lose access.

Authenticator is stable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

Don't delay implementing this solution, it's the best thing you can do for your identity protection. I would rate Authenticator as nine out of ten.

We are using it for authentication. We are using GPOs for user and computer policies.

The central authentication server is most valuable. GPOs are useful for user and computer policies.

Its price should be improved. It is very expensive for Turkish people.

We have been using Azure Active Directory for about six months. This is a new company, and we started to use new IT solutions. We bought a lot of IT solutions, equipment, and tools. 

It is stable. 

At the end of the project, about 1,200 people will use this solution. We don't have any plans to increase its usage.

We didn't use Microsoft's support. We have mostly Turkish or local solution partners for any help. 

I didn't use any other solution.

It was not easy. It was also not difficult. It took about a month.

We used a solution partner for its deployment. For maintenance, we would have about 10 engineers for 1,200 people.

It is very expensive. Its price should be lower. Price is the most important factor for Turkish people. 

This is the best solution for authorization. I would rate it a nine out of 10.

My main use is for directory services, including identity access, management policies, access control, authentication features, and endpoint management.

The licensing model makes it difficult to understand the real cost of the solution, especially because it changes all the time.  

I have fifteen years of experience with Active Directory.

The stability has improved from a couple of years ago. From time to time, there are service interruptions, but they're not a problem.

This solution is easily scalable.

The technical support can be confusing - if you're looking for something very specific, it can be hard to get the right answer or a solution. Google Workspace's support is stronger - it's fast and easy, and they go the extra mile without asking.

Active Directory is straightforward to set up.

Azure is the leading market solution because of its history, features, and maturity. I'd rate this solution seven out of ten.

My primary use case is to access our company resources. I'm a solution architect and we are customers of Authenticator.

I use this solution on a daily basis and it's a very functional app. that adds an extra layer when it comes to securing the data owned by my company. It's quite easy to deploy. 

I'd like to see integration between applications and phones included in the solution. It would also be helpful to have support for the kind of integration you see between Facebook and Google, support with protocols from one application on the internet or SaaS to another one. I've seen several kinds of applications in the area of risky behavior that are a little better in other solutions.

I've been using this solution for a year. 

The solution always works, it's stable. 

The solution is scalable, we have around 40,000 users in our company. 

I have previously used other products but Authenticator is included in the Microsoft license suite package so the decision to go with it was commercial. 

The solution is connected with Intune in the cloud so implementation is very easy and took me less than five minutes. Everything is updated via Microsoft cloud delivery.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

The solution is being used at Kuwait University for different things, such as email systems.

Overall the solution functions very well, such as the ability to access it from the cloud.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for approximately eight years.

The stability of Azure Active Directory is good.

Azure Active Directory has been scalable.

If we have any problems we contact the local reseller, and if we need to contact Microsoft, we do it directly.

We were previously using Microsoft Active Directory which was not on the cloud. Having Azure Active Directory on the cloud is a benefit.

The initial setup is simple. There is not a need to do any installation or configuration, you only make a subscription and you run it.

There is a subscription model that is used for Azure Active Directory.

The subscription should be categorized by business size. For example, small companies should have a discounted price, this would help small companies and the organization to be automated.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate Azure Active Directory a ten out of ten.

I like Intune's MDM and MI.

I would like it if Intune could manage MacOS or iOS directly. Right now, we have to use a third-party solution. 

I've been working with Intune for four years

I think Intune is more stable compared to five years ago.

Intune's scalability is better now that it's on the cloud. We can deploy to all of our devices without performance suffering.  

Microsoft support is good.

My customers usually do a pilot project. Then it goes to the IT department after that. If they are happy with the features and functionality, then they will deploy it to the users. We typically have no problems, but sometimes we face issues with older devices.

I would like to see Microsoft offer discounts for larger Intune deployments.

I rate Intune nine out of 10. If the user is working with a Microsoft device or license, Intune is really powerful because it has a bundled license. Still, if we need to manage another system, Intune is too expensive. If the ecosystem is Microsoft, I recommend Intune because it's Microsoft's end-to-end solution. 

We primarily use the solution to take users into our AD. That's the basic purpose. We are using it in our whole organization so that our AD is synced.

Overall, the solution is quite good. 

There are a few additional functionalities that are very compatible. For example, device management is there and creating a custom role, which reduces the task of restricting the user from AD, if the person is on the on-premise AD. If they're using on-premise, they have to create a distribution list, then apply Azure to that. It's simplified in Azure AD, making it easy to create roles and assign them to the users. 

In fact, the device management and role assignments are great. These two features I found very compatible. For device management, if you are using an on-prem AD, you have to use some other software like Google admin to manage the devices. However, here, it is integrated into Azure AD. That's a positive aspect of the solution.

Regarding the role assignments, it's a very flexible way to restrict the user, or, if you want to customize access, that can be done as well.

The activity log, which is a way to see who made what changes, is quite useful.

Azure AD has features that helped improve our security posture. It is SSO - Single Sign-On. We can manage the users very easily and we can apply SSO and MFA to them. 

I'll give it a score of four out of five for the security posture on offer.

For whatever company I'm working for, we cannot fully put the data on the cloud due to compliance. Rather, you have to keep some data on-premises. That’s why it’s great that we can use the hybrid approach with Microsoft.

Azure AD  has not affected our end-user experience in any way. The transition is also quite smooth. If you're using an AD Connect to sync from your on-premises to your Azure AD, nothing has come up from the end-users in terms of issues or problems.

It has made our work easier in that it’s simplified everything for us. It has eliminated a few of the third-party tools, which we used to use. For example, we had a dependency on Google admin due to the fact that we could see where we could manage the devices of the user. That has been integrated directly to Azure AD.

The solution has not saved costs. While we’ve eliminated some tools, there are some other features that we are dependent on as admin, which is not yet integrated with Azure AD.

Other features have a broader scope and are covered under Azure. If, for example, I want to create a workflow, that cannot be done in Azure AD. That is something that is done in the Azure function or Azure logic app. Parts have to be covered in other functions. 

Longer-term, there are some features which might be added, such as admin features similar to Google admin. If I'm an employee and I'm exiting the company, for example, I need to transfer that data from myself to my manager. For that, maybe they could include a feature where they can transfer the data from the user directly and we don't have to rely on any admins.

I've been using Azure AD for one and a half years. Before, we were on-premises.

The stability is quite good. It has already been integrated with SSO or MFA. From a security perspective, it's quite stable. 

The scalability is pretty fair. Azure is doing quite good work in the cloud. It's one of the top clouds. Scalability is not an issue, for Azure AD at least.

We have approximately 800 users overall, between our India and Phoenix offices.

We have ten administrators working with this tool in your organization. They are mostly assistant admins. There are two people who are working as global administrators. They do all the configurations.

I haven't worked with Microsoft regarding this solution.

My past experience is limited to Azure AD. We also work with Azure Monitor and Azure Logic.

The initial setup is pretty much a straightforward process. I've set up another AD Connect and the process was done in 15 minutes. If you have proper documentation, you can go through it very, very smoothly. That's what my understanding is.

The solution doesn't require any maintenance. 

We've definitely seen an ROI. I can't speak to the pricing part, however, when I see it as an administrator, I definitely see the value for money for our organization. A lot of functionalities have been added, with still more plans to add a few more features. There clearly has been a value addition.

I don't have any insight on the pricing end as that is always managed by our team leader. They take care of all the pricing activities, et cetera. Any pricing-related information I don't have knowledge of. 

In terms of deployment, we are on a hybrid structure, where we are using an AD Connect to sync our on-prem users to Azure.

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

A lot of functions have been included as compared to the on-premises deployment. Compared with competitors such as AWS and Google Cloud, it is in a different league. For example, AWS also has good features, however, this is more simplified and it's a Microsoft product, so you can rely on it for the long term.