We performed a comparison between Microsoft Entra ID and RSA SecurID based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Authentication Systems solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I like about Microsoft Authenticator is that it has good features. I also like that the tool is straightforward to use. Microsoft Authenticator also has a good UI that's very simple to use. I also like that I didn't find any limitations or negative aspects from the features of the tool because Microsoft Authenticator is not an extensive application. It has a two-factor based authentication which validates the user through the password, then it approves authentication."
"The scalability is good now, and I find it to be more stable and faster since scaling up to ESX."
"The most valuable feature is Conditional Access, and we use it extensively."
"The ability to grant access to other organizations is helpful."
"This solution is less time-consuming. We don't have to hire as many resources to give permissions to a particular user or group for any application."
"Single sign-on provides flexibility and helps because users don't want to remember so many passwords when logging in. It's a major feature. Once you log in, you have access to all the applications. It also enables us to provide backend access controls to our users, especially when it comes to groups, as we are trying to normalize things."
"The central authentication server is most valuable. GPOs are useful for user and computer policies."
"All of the features are amazing, such as identity governance and privileged identity management."
"I think it is really good when it comes to the hard token side of things."
"I would say that the two-factor authentication and the ease of installation and configuration are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The most valuable features of RSA SecurID Access are push notifications, multifactor authentication, and ease of integration and deployment."
"One of the most valuable feature is the ID soft token and hard token."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The cost of licensing always has room for improvement."
"They can improve how people manage their accounts. They can simplify and provide more information about adding or updating a phone number or email id in the MSA account. A lot of time users do get confused about where to go. For example, if I've changed my mobile number, where do I go and change my mobile number in the MSA account? A lot of time, employees think if they change the phone number in the HR database, it'll automatically get changed on the MSA account, which is not the case. Microsoft can simplify that and add these questions in the FAQ documents as well."
"I would rate it an eight out of ten. The price plays a factor in the rating."
"It would be awesome to have a feature where you can see the permissions of a user in all their Azure subscriptions. Right now, you have to select a user, then you have to select the subscription to see which permissions the user has in their selected subscriptions. Sometimes, you just want to know, "Does that user have any permissions in any subscriptions?" That would be awesome if that would be available via the portal."
"My only pain point in this solution is creating group membership for devices."
"You can manage the users from the Office 365 administration center, and you can manage them from Azure Active Directory. Those are two different environments, but they do the same things. They can gather the features in one place, and it might be better if that place were Azure."
"When it comes to identity and access life cycle management for applications that are run on-premises, as well as access governance, if those kinds of capabilities could be built into Azure Active Directory, that would be good."
"I would like to see Microsoft communicate how they intend to manage legacy applications. Right now, you still have to deploy a hosted domain server (which comes at an extra cost) if you have a legacy application that cannot sync properly with the enterprise applications and the modern applications."
"It doesn't offer an agent-based or reverse-proxy-based approach to integration, which could enhance its flexibility."
"There are different compliances across the globe; RSA SecurID Access could be more complaint-based."
"The interface needs to improve a lot. It should be easier to manage and navigate."
"Sometimes, we encounter issues with other applications that are not compatible with RSA SecurID Access and require expert troubleshooting. At those times, we need additional support from an implementation perspective. This is an area where Oracle can improve as there is no substitute for reliable and efficient support."
Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Authentication Systems with 190 reviews while RSA SecurID is ranked 8th in Authentication Systems with 9 reviews. Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6, while RSA SecurID is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Entra ID writes "Saves us time and money and features Conditional Access policies, SSPR, and MFA". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA SecurID writes "Useful for making logins more secure by using multifactor authentication but extremely expensive". Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Ping Identity Platform and Fortinet FortiToken, whereas RSA SecurID is most compared with Yubico YubiKey, Ping Identity Platform, Fortinet FortiToken, Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager. See our Microsoft Entra ID vs. RSA SecurID report.
See our list of best Authentication Systems vendors.
We monitor all Authentication Systems reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
