Microsoft Identity Manager Reviews

We use the solution for authentication management.

The product’s simplicity and integration are valuable. All the accounts are linked to Microsoft.

The security could be slightly improved.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

There are more than 100 users in our organization. I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten.

The support team is quite knowledgeable. Getting a support person is quite challenging, though.

I rate the ease of setup a seven out of ten. The solution is deployed on the cloud. It took us a few days to deploy it. Multiple business, technical, and security teams are involved in the deployment process.

The product helps us save 10 to 20% of our time.

The solution is expensive. I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

I recommend the tool to others. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Microsoft Identity Manager for application identification and single sign-on processes for different applications.

The product allows us to track the logins easily. We can find out if someone is trying to attack Boot Guard.

The product's pricing and integration features could be improved.

We have been using Microsoft Identity Manager for a couple of years.

The product is 99.9% stable. Although, sometimes, internal configurations or improvements made in the vendor's system may cause an impact on our systems as well.

I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I rate the product’s initial setup process an eight out of ten. We encounter difficulties integrating legacy systems with the product in Azure environment. It takes a few weeks to complete the process.

It is an expensive tool.

Microsoft Identity Manager has good functionality, but its pricing is too high. I rate it an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is ID provisioning. We use it to manage the entire life cycle of an employee from their entrance to exit from the organization, which includes credential management and passport management.

What makes this solution attractive is the licensing model. Microsoft Identity Manager is included in premium versions of Azure AD and in enterprise agreements such as E3. This makes the solution very attractive to many of our clients who are subscribed to those products.

The governance reporting of the solution can be improved, as it can be difficult to get good, intelligible reports.
Microsoft could implement an API of some sort to allow report customization or some form of SQL model, to further customize modules and improve the reporting. That would be a major improvement to the product.

The solution is stable. 

As long as the right infrastructure is provided the solution is scalable.
I think any organization can use it. 

From my view, Microsoft doesn't invest much in this product and it can take a while to resolve any issues. 

Neutral

The setup is not difficult, although in my experience sometimes I ran into situations where I had to deal with a number of bugs. With five being difficult and one being easy, I would rate this solution a two point five in terms of setup, configuration, and implementation difficulty. The solution requires patching or tweaking right away, and configuration requires some level of experience.

The solution is included in the Microsoft E3 license and premium subscriptions of Azure AD.

In my view, this solution is more appropriate for organizations that have legacy applications, separate identity stores, as well as an active directory.

I rate this solution a six out of ten.

I'm currently evaluating SailPoint and I'm very interested in it. I expect they have a long-term vision for identity and access governance that Microsoft doesn't have. I expect richer support and an easier approach to implementation compared to MIM.

MIM allows for easier provisioning of Outlook mailboxes.

MIM's most valuable feature is its connectivity with Exchange.

MIM's reliability could be improved.

I've been using this solution for ten years.

MIM's stability is excellent.

MIM's scalability is excellent.

Microsoft's technical support is excellent.

Positive

We used SailPoint previously, but MIM is cheaper and easier to administer.

The initial setup was complex - I would rate the setup experience as two out of five.

We deployed using an in-house team, which took six months.

MIM gives a high return on investment.

MIM is free with a Microsoft Azure license.

We evaluated SailPoint and NetIQ.

I would give MIM a rating of ten out of ten.

We use the synchronization service the company provides for data synchronization. We're customers of Microsoft and I'm the company manager. 

The synchronization tool is very powerful and when compared to other vendors the license fees are great - it comes free with the Windows Server license. It's a great product and works like a framework with very good flexibility. the SQL Server connections can be like SSL and I find that very useful. 

We always need to log into the servers to do anything which means that the product is not very user friendly because we can't invoke it. You can't open it from your laptop, for example. If someone needs to carry out a joining or some other functionality which doesn't require them to be an admin but just a regular user doing something else, they need to log in to the server and we need to provide privileges for that. 

The other issue is the SQL Server. The solution is tightly tied to the SQL Server, which means it does not have any compatibility with the AWS RDS and it doesn't support the SQL Server RDS version. It also means there is a very high dependency on the SQL and for that reason instead of RDS we need to set up our own SQL Server on EC2 and I think that is something which they need to change. There's no compatability for Azure to manage the SQL Servers. It doesn't need to be vendor specific, but it should be able to support whichever database is provided by the vendor. 

I'd like to see more connectivity in the synchronization. What they currently have should be expanded. You should be able to connect to Azure AD Connect and get more cloud support.
And again, the program should be able to connect to any of the cloud SQL. 

I've been using this solution since 2008. 

The Identity Manager portal has a lot of issues with SharePoint and we need to buy a SharePoint license too. If the company is not at all into Microsoft it's very difficult. Getting version upgrades is very difficult for the portal. We use automated scripts for maintenance. 

In terms of scalability, they don't have a proper roadmap. It's one of the disadvantages of the solution and one of the reasons we're looking for an alternative. The license we have is user-based. Everything is automatic. We don't need to go or do anything it's like automatically synchronized.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. It took us about a month. Our internal team was responsible for the implementation ourselves.

I would rate this solution a five out of 10. 

We use the product for identity management. It stores organizational data, including contracts we generate using Active Directory.

The product’s most valuable feature is stability.

Microsoft Identity Manager could be more intuitive in terms of interface. Also, the product’s life cycle is very short. It is going to expire soon. It becomes tough to manage projects in this case.

We have been using Microsoft Identity Manager since 2016.

It is a stable product.

It is a scalable product.

The technical support services are average. They should improve the response time.

Neutral

The initial setup is complicated. It doesn’t have a modern GUI, making the process difficult. It takes one and a half years to complete. It requires one executive for maintenance.

I rate Microsoft Identity Manager a six out of ten.

There have been only two, maybe three projects related to this product. The challenge with obtaining information about these projects is that we focused mainly on designing the solution. 

The customers did not want continuous involvement in the operations because they couldn't see immediate results. So, we started with initial contact and face-to-face interviews to understand the organization's structure. Then, we began integrating the solution, including the site-based aspects and the schema for the metadata directory, which is essential for working with other components. 

However, the time spent designing and integrating the identity solution is a challenge. The deployment process is not quick. In the best-case scenario, it may take around six months before you see some tangible results at the beginning of the implementation of the identity solution.

The concept is primarily for the people in the business. In business, you can discuss how integrating all the services and resources within the company can bring numerous benefits. It involves having an integrated persona in the organization, not just in technology but throughout the company, including resources, printing, Salesforce, and office.

The problem lies in how to convey these ideas within each department. For example, the technology department might say, "No, this is an accounting problem because it's related to the accounting system." And the same goes for other departments like human resources. These are the kind of challenges we face when trying to integrate all the components within the company. We need to communicate with individuals about the benefits of identity, which are clear to project managers. We have executive support internally, but the challenge lies with the employees who don't see the benefits because they might be long-term or not immediately apparent.

I always appreciate products that provide technical information. It would be helpful to understand what's happening behind the scenes, such as log information. It doesn't need to be extensive, but it should show the process and provide insights. For example, in any Identity Manager software, having a console that displays the ongoing process helps identify any issues. Once you stop the process, you can refer to the problem and determine which system it's related to. This is very useful.

In the case of Microsoft Identity Manager, it would be beneficial to have a similar process where each stage of the process is clearly documented. For example, if there's a problem with communication between the identity manager and the human resource services when requesting a new account or adding a profile, having visibility into the systems involved helps identify the root cause. It could be a problem with the sales system, even if the product itself is not the Active Directory server solution. Understanding the connection and how to resolve the issue is crucial.

It takes a considerable amount of time to reach the right person and truly understand the problem. Especially in different regions, the problem may appear different but actually be related to another underlying issue. Support personnel with experience can identify such cases and provide effective solutions, but it can be time-consuming to reach these individuals, sometimes taking two or three hours on the phone. This can be challenging when the issue is affecting production. Reaching out to the support can be complex. For example, when dealing with Active Directory, there are ways to gather information and create reports, but they may not always be effective in certain scenarios. You often need to gather information from different sources, compile it into a document, and explain the problem, its identification, the solution, and so on. It's an ongoing process with multiple steps.

The setup was difficult. The deployment process is not quick. This is the case not just with identity solutions from Microsoft but also in general. There haven't been many implementations or opportunities for identity solutions in Mexico. The projects haven't been successful as they want to see quick resolution and benefits from the solution. Implementing identity solutions involves understanding the organization, integrating various systems, validating security components, and addressing other challenges.  People often feel frustrated because it takes a significant amount of time during the planning phase. There are no significant issues. The main problem with Microsoft Identity Manager is related to identity requests or similar matters.

Moreover, maintenance depends on how the project is initiated because I don't provide extensive support after the implementation. But initially, around five individuals are involved in a company with items, persons, and employees. In the beginning, there were only five products published in the shopping cart, and users can request services or access to systems such as accounting or similar programs. I don't recall the other programs, but there were only five initially. The problem arises when it comes to budget constraints. We publish five products internally and integrate with three systems—human resources, accounting, and IP directory— but there are more systems in existence. We try to create and extend the solution, but the customer needs to assign dedicated personnel to ensure the continuity and smooth operation of the solution. This becomes problematic because they usually reach out to us when they encounter issues like communication problems or misconfigurations. Maintenance or system upgrades are not the primary reasons for their calls.

I have experience with Microsoft Identity Manager as well as the Identity Manager from Quest Software, which was previously owned by VMware.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. However, my experience is based on the planning stage because we haven't had the opportunity to implement it.

We are currently using this solution, and we are also a partner. We have implemented it in different sectors for different use cases. For example, we have implemented it in the financial sector to synchronize and automate lifecycle management. We have also done deployments to only provide self-service for resetting passwords. We also have many deployments related to lifecycle management in schools and the education sector.

It is one of the easiest products to implement, which is one of the main advantages. The integration is easy. Unlike other products, it is not complicated to integrate.

It requires a lot of improvements. Microsoft is killing this product and migrating some of the features to Azure AD. The last version of this solution was 2016. If it is going to stay and integrate with Azure AD, its integration needs to be worked on in terms of connectors, etc. It doesn't seem that they are improving it alone. Microsoft wants to integrate it with Azure AD, but the integration is still not complete. 

Their support is bad, and it should be improved.

I have been using this solution since 2006, but it had a different name at that time. 

It is stable.

It is not scalable. Once you have more than 100K users, it is not scalable. It can't scale and perform at that level.

Their support is bad. I would rate them one out of five.

Its setup is straightforward.

It is easy to implement and integrate, but I would advise keeping it in the scope of only synchronization and not governance. That's because it lacks governance features.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.

I have an ongoing project with my clients that encompasses research.

Hypbrid cloud is the major case, also some on Mobile Application developing.

Customer point of view, MIM work as / or together with SSO to extend the authentication, empowers orgnization agility by adopting new apps faster 

Identity 
Security 
Access Managment is the three I can think of. why? they transpass the hybrid barrier, and it's from Microsoft, fits in M365 applicaiton well

The product could be more friendly for non-native English speakers. It would also be better if it were more intuitive and visually attractive.

Microsoft Identity Manager was designed for the on-premise environment. If you want to implement a cloud-based application, so you will run into some problems, including the transport of the token from the applicant, the application side, the mobile application side through the firewall, and the transfer to the backend for authentication. That part is not quite convenient. It is very slow.

I have been using this solution for a few years. 

It is a stable product. You will experience some issues with it, but it's a good product. Identity is a complex thing, multifactor authentication is yet another, what add on this complexity is the wild Internet, if you focus enough，MIM or AAD will be you best choice. 

Microsoft Identity Manager is a scalable product. It allows for multiple users that can work together.

The primary use case is for the single migration of the user from on-premises to Azure Active Directory in the cloud. It is also used for the Microsoft authentication application for mobile devices.

We authenticate on the smart device back to back so they can access their emails and other applications.

We are planning to use this for the Windows 10 authentication as well as directly from the Azure Active Directory.

The most valuable and most interesting feature is the conditional access. 

It can provide a low formulation combination based on the extra files that we can work on to verify the solution.

The information that is available for the Active Directory portal is segregated here and there. It's not in one single location where you can see, for example, all of the security features and maybe the customization feature.

In the next release of this solution, I would like to see the manageability, the web-based access to the portal, and the reconfiguration of things to be made simpler and more straightforward.

We have been selling this solution for the last five years.

It's stable, but it's maybe a bit more challenging than I have seen in the last five years.

This solution is scalable. We have plans to increase our usage in the future.

The number of users varies. There can be anywhere from 10,000 to maybe more than 100,000 users, who are made up of IT, administrators, managers, and architects.

We have been in touch with technical support. They are good. Normally they are available to assist and they are knowledgable.

Our previous system was based on an on-premises solution. Now, the on-premises products are integrated with the cloud, which is what made the difference.

The initial setup is straightforward and can be deployed in one week.

It was installed by my internal team.

I would say that it's the best solution on the market and I would go ahead with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.