Microsoft Entra ID Reviews

The scalability is quite good.

It's a very necessary product in today's technological landscape. 

I can't speak to many aspects of the solution that need improvement.

The dashboard and interface could be better. It would be ideal if it was easier to use.

I've been dealing with the solution for four years.

I have found the solution to be very stable. 

The solution is extremely scalable. 

I have had a few experiences with technical support from Microsoft. It's a very interesting support that they provide. We work closely with them, and, when we do work together, it's better.

Before choosing this solution, we did not use any other product.

The initial setup is very easy.

I handled the implementation myself. 

We are a Microsoft partner.

Overall, it's a very interesting product.

I'd rate it at a nine out of ten.

I have been using Azure Active Directory mainly for access management, identity governance, access reviews, and patent management.

All of the features are amazing, such as identity governance and privileged identity management.

Azure Active Directory could benefit by adding the capability for identity life cycle for the on-premise solution. For example, an HR solution, which is built on-premise or, in general, better on-premise capable solutions.

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

Azure Active Directory is highly stable.

I have found Azure Active Directory to be scalable.

Every time I open a support case or support ticket, the response is very quick. They have been able to have a resolution to the issues I have had in a timely manner.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The E5 plan we are using contains the premium plans for Azure Active Directory. We are not paying only for the Azure Active Directory Premium licenses. We have it already included within our E5 plan.

I would recommend Azure Active Directory to others. it is integrated with all Microsoft platforms. It has a lot of useful features that can help security IT administrators.

I rate Azure Active Directory a ten out of ten.

Containerization is mainly what I've been dealing with lately. I've been trying to provide solutions with Active Directory and cloud resolutions so that Edge services can communicate properly to the main data centers.

We use Active Directory for global authentication.

The advantage of Azure Active Directory is that it's a cloud environment, so just about anybody can get to it. As long as you can get to the cloud, you can get to the internet. You can authenticate offshore resources to client services, which is what my present company does. That kind of authentication is much more advantageous as an Active Directory solution.

If you want to replicate a website at the frontend in Azure, it's very easy to do it globally.

As soon as you authenticate to the web storage, where you hit the frontend, then you can redirect to whatever resources locally that are duplicated.

It doesn't function the same way as Active Directory inside of a physical infrastructure. Even VMware Active Directory doesn't function the same way in the cloud. Cloud is all flat. That's one of the disadvantages. You can authenticate through Active Directory through Federated Services, but it's mainly like an IIS web frontend and bulk storage.

It's all record based.

I've dealt with Azure Active Directory for about three years.

It is a cloud solution.

Stability-wise, it is much more secure and stable than AWS. Oddly enough, a lot of people think that AWS has many more regions and sites. It's actually not true. Azure has far more. There's a good reason why the government jumped right on Azure and uses it for their internal resources.

It is very scalable.

Microsoft technical support is very responsive. If you buy the enterprise package, then when you call them, they will jump right in and help you out.

When one of our clients had a ransomware outbreak, Microsoft helped them solve quite a lot and helped them get up and running.

The initial setup is very straightforward. Microsoft is very good about helping you get things set up, and they're very responsive.

We evaluated AWS AD. AWS support will provide bits and pieces, but Microsoft will jump in and help out. Of course, you have to pay the price for the corporate support, but who wouldn't want that, especially when your whole environment is a Microsoft environment.

It works really well, and I would rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten. You need good training, and Microsoft will provide that for free as part of their package.

Azure Active Directory is an identity and access management service.

With Azure Active Directory we were able to manage with different options the access for different users.

I have been using Azure Active Directory within the past 16 months.

The solution is stable.

The solution was difficult to scale because the group's configuration was complex.

I would rate the scalability level of Azure Active Directory a five out of ten.

We have not needed to contact support.

The implementation was easy and took approximately three hours.

We used three people to do the implementation of the solution and our analyst was in charge of the maintenance. 

The price of the solution was reasonable.

I rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of ten.

We had five people using the solution in my organization.

The primary use case of the solution is for application security and user access management.

Azure Active Directory has improved our organization because it is one of the key components and is being used by almost most companies for identifying and access management on the cloud or on-premise infrastructure.

The solution has a variety of tools. Two of the most valuable features are the ability to create users and to replicate the user account from on-premise to the cloud. 

The solution could be improved when it comes to monitoring and logging as these are the most critical areas in case something was to go wrong.

Additionally, the available zones should be in all regions, such as in AWS, they have higher availability in all regions.

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

I find the stability of the solution to be very good. The solution has improved a lot in this area.

The solution is very scalable and is easy to scale.

The technical support is great. 

I have previously used Amazon Load Balancer and AWS. 

The initial setup of the solution is very easy.  

I rate Azure Active Directory a ten.

My primary use case is for Azure Active Directory is user management, creating users, assigning them access to network resources, network drives, resetting passwords, and dissembling users.

This solution has helped my organization by allowing us simple management of identities within the organization for integration with the single sign-on system unifying access to applications for mobile devices and management. 

AD is the starting point for the unification of access control, or for using those identities within AD. Without it, we would not be able to give our users access to applications from different devices, whether they are Mac OS, Windows 10, Android, or any other operating system.

Azure Active Directory is a very simple utility to use, it has very good visibility and transparency, and an easy-to-use panel.

I have been using Azure Active Directory for approximately one year.

Azure Active Directory's stability is very high.

The scalability is good.

The technical support could improve by having a faster response time.

I rate the support of Azure Active Directory a three out of five.

If you have been running an on-premises implementation of Active Directory Domain Services, then it is only a migration. You migrate the identities from on-premises to the cloud. 

If you are setting it up from scratch, it can be easy too. You can do the migration by using Azure AD Connect, which is mostly a straightforward process.

Everything begins with the design of the domain structure. If it is well designed, then it is simple to adopt AD from scratch. I am not sure about migrations from other implementations of identity control, but if you are starting from scratch, it is very easy to use.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Azure Active Directory a nine out of ten.

We have an Azure active directory and we also have our own on-prem AD instances.

We basically use the solution for user management, group management, policy management.

The portal version of the Azure active directory is pretty robust.

The solution is very good for different types of management, including, user, group and policy management requirements.

The integration between the Azure active directory and the traditional active directory could be improved upon. We have two active directories that are installed on virtual machines, which are traditional active directories. The interactions between the two are very limited. For example, I could modify users in our own private instances of AD, however, they won't propagate up to the Azure active directory and vice versa. For us, the integrations are the biggie between the on-prem or the self-hosted AD versus Azure AD.

The traditional AD instances that we maintain have UIs that are very archaic and monolithic and very difficult to navigate. They should update the UI to make it easier to navigate and make it overall more modern.

We've been using the solution for a while. We are actively using it now.

We're using the latest version of the solution at this time.

In general, I would rate this solution at an eight out of ten.

If there were better integration capabilities between active directories, I would likely rate this product higher.

We use it to have better security and better control over PCs and clients.

The ability to see and control PCs and mobile devices is the most valuable. I can see where they are and how many we have. I can also see the age and retention of PCs.

The only issue with Azure AD is that it doesn't have control over the wifi network. You have to do something more to have a secure wifi network. To have it working, you need an active directory server on-premises to take care of the networks.

I have been using Microsoft products for a really long time. I have been using cloud solutions for a couple of years.

It is stable and working for us.

They don't give support to the end users in Sweden. We always have to go to a reseller, which is a bad thing.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We didn't do it ourselves. A company did it for us.

We are a non-profit organization, so we get good prices from Microsoft for their products. It is working well, but it could be cheaper. For the type of organization we are, it would be good if they could give a little bit more and be more generous like Google, which has completely free services. Microsoft has free versions or web services called Office 365 E1, which is free for use, but we want to have it with more qualified clients.

I would advise getting some help from professionals to implement it. You have to implement it in a very planned way with a very detailed roadmap.

I would rate Microsoft Azure Active Directory Premium an eight out of ten. It is quite good, and we are quite pleased with this solution.

We use Microsoft Authenticator as well as Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Normally, we enable MFA for all users who have email access and application access. Users can choose which authenticator they want to use. Based on their convenience, they enable Microsoft Authenticator or Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Almost 80% to 90% of users use Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Users who travel a lot choose Microsoft Authenticator. 

We are using the latest version. It is updated by default, and we don't have to update the application. It is also automatically updated on mobile.

It has been stable, and we haven't had any issues since we started to use it. 

Microsoft Authenticator is as easy as Google Authenticator, but it is not open to all types of applications. Google Authenticator is integrated with other third-party platforms and applications, whereas Microsoft Authenticator is not. It should have more integration with third-party platforms and applications.

I have been using this solution for the last two years.

It is stable.

We didn't have any issues or concerns. Therefore, we have never raised a ticket for Microsoft Authenticator.

The initial setup is very easy. You have to enable MFA on the portal for a user, and you have to put the user's phone number. The user can then log in with Azure ID. The user is redirected to the second level of code authenticator and receives an SMS on the mobile. The user needs to enter the OTP.

It comes free with the Microsoft account. We have a yearly agreement, and all products are covered under it.

We will keep using Microsoft Authenticator as a secondary solution. We prefer Microsoft SMS Authenticator over Microsoft Authenticator. 

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Microsoft Authenticator a nine out of ten.

Typically, we have applications deployed within the office network that we need to make accessible to our staff outside of the bank. Some of them are also our clients, but mainly, this is for people working in the region.

So without having to put them behind firewalls, what we opted to do is publish them to the proxy. This means that they can then come in via a secure port and begin to access the resources as if they were internally and securely within the network.

The most valuable feature is the ability to set up conditional access, where you can enforce users to connect using multifactor authentication. This is one of the things that we are using it for. It means that users who are accessing the applications remotely are authentic.

Technical support could be faster.

I have been using this product for three years.

This solution is stable and we plan to increase our usage.

It is a scalable product. It can be deployed in a highly available manner, where you have to have two or three connectors. We have approximately 7,000 users.

We are satisfied with the technical support from Microsoft, although it could be faster.

This product is part of our enterprise license and we did not previously use a different one.

This is a cloud service, so the initial setup is straightforward. It is not complex.

For each request, it does not take very long.

We deployed this product ourselves.

No staff is required for maintenance.

This product is sold as part of the enterprise package and our licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis. You can get it as an add-on and it's not expensive.

I have not evaluated other solutions, which makes it difficult to tell what additional features I would like to see in the future. It is sufficient and adequate for our current use case.

In our current use case, there is nothing that is lacking. This is definitely a product that I can recommend for other users.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.