We performed a comparison between Azure Active Directory and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, users favor Azure Active Directory over Fortinet FortiAuthenticator because it has a free option and users also report an ROI.
"The support response time and the freedom from strange bugs and strange things happening in the software are valuable."
"We don't have to go in and do a lot of the work that we did before. It may have saved us somewhere in the range of 10 to 30 percent of the time we spent on provisioning access."
"Its best feature is definitely the process design. It is quite easy and straightforward to design a process."
"The identity lifecycle support is definitely valuable because we are a complex organization, and there is a lot of onboarding, movement, and offboarding in our organization. We have 31,000 users, and there are a lot of users who are constantly onboarding, offboarding, and moving. So, we need to make sure that these activities are supported. In old times, we used to do everything manually. Everyone was onboarded, offboarded, or moved manually. So, from a business point of view and an economics point of view, identity lifecycle is most valuable. From a security point of view, access review is the most important feature for us."
"Omada's most valuable aspect is its usability."
"Two valuable features of Omada Identity are the ability to discover accounts and link them to identities, and the automatic disabling of inactive accounts or identities."
"It has a very user-friendly interface compared to what we are used to, and it is highly configurable. In the old solution, when we needed to do something, we had to have a programmer sitting next to us, whereas, in Omada Identity, everything is configurable."
"The most valuable aspect of the product is that it is Microsoft-based and it supports all Microsoft technology."
"We use this product for SSL two-factor authentication and FortiToken management."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"Valuable features include the robust SSO features, when you have more complicated authentication within an organization. We can mix AD, Radius, Portal, SSO Portals (Google, etc.), and build our own environment. It is very flexible."
"The most valuable feature is the flexibility in using the SMS messages."
"The product enables SSO."
"Intuitive interface and easy to deploy."
"The ease of use is really nice. Using Authenticator, I've been able to actually work better on my authentication due to the fact that I have a single fabric to authenticate control from my firewall and on my access points. Authentication takes place from this area."
"I prefer the passing tool that sent an active directory console to a Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, then Fortinet FortiAuthenticator does not pass the locks."
"The single sign-on of the solution is the most valuable aspect."
"It offers features that improve our security posture such as multifactor authentication, which is the second layer of protection that is used when we log into the cloud."
"The scalability is quite good."
"The scalability of the product is decent."
"This product is easy to use."
"Microsoft Authenticator is highly secure."
"My two preferred features are conditional access and privileged identity management."
"The performance is good."
"If you're running Omada on a cloud service, you may have some issues deploying the newest release. Sometimes, the latest release doesn't adapt to the processes we have already installed. Identity Access Management is a critical system for our organization, and we need to ensure that everyone has the same access as they did before the release."
"The user interface should have a more flexible design, where you can change it to your requirement."
"What I would most like to see added to the product is role management, especially enterprise or business role management, and the processes around that."
"Omada's reporting functionality is limited and could benefit from greater customization."
"When you do a recalculation of an identity, it's hard to understand what was incorrect before you started the recalculation, and which values are actually updated... all you see are all the new fields that are provisioned, instead of seeing only the fields that are changed."
"Omada's performance could be better because we had some latency issues. Still, it's difficult to say how much of that is due to Omada versus the resources used by our other vendors in our on-prem environment. Considering the resources we have invested into making it run well, it's slightly slower than we would expect."
"Omada Identity has two main issues that need to be solved or improved the most. One is its setup or installation process because it's complex and cumbersome. I'm talking about the process for on-premises deployment because I've never tried the cloud version of Omada Identity. Setting up the cloud version should be much easier. The second area for improvement in Omada Identity is that it's piggybacking on Microsoft's complex way of having all kinds of add-ons, extensions, or setups, whether small or large, such as the new SQL Server, and it's cumbersome to make sure that everything works. Omada Identity is a complex solution and could still be improved."
"In our organization, all the data is event-driven, which means that if an attribute is changed in the source system, it can be updated within a few seconds in all end-user systems. There is room for improvement in Omada regarding that. Omada is still batch-based for some processes, so sometimes it can take an hour or even four hours before the execution is run and the update is sent."
"We've had some issues with integration."
"Improvements in the product could start from the dashboard, overall customization, and configuration."
"The speed of deployment on the cloud could be improved. It took a few days when it should have been just two days"
"The product must provide 2FA for applications."
"Fortinet FortiAuthenticator's initial setup process could be easier."
"We have issues with HA (high availability). These should be addressed in future releases."
"The hardware aspect of the solution could be improved. We are not really able to understand the hardware capabilities of the device."
"The integration with third-party tools must be better."
"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."
"The scalability of the solution is good."
"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."
"I hope, in the roadmap, Microsoft eventually offers the same features as Okta. It will take some more time to mature."
"If Microsoft can give us a way to see where this product is running, from a backend perspective, then it would be great."
"When you start to deal with legacy applications, provisioning is not as intuitive."
"The onboarding process for new users can be improved. It can be made simpler for people who have never registered to Azure AD previously and need to create an account and enable the MFA. The initial setup can be made simpler for non-IT people. It should be a bit simpler to use. Unless you get certifications, such as AZ-300 and AZ-301, it is not a simple thing to use at the enterprise scale."
"The downside is that we now have all our eggs in one basket with Microsoft. We have this great authentication and single sign-on, but if Microsoft has an outage in North America or globally, on Outlook or Teams, we're dead in the water... We get some type of hiccup once a quarter."
Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is ranked 5th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 52 reviews while Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 190 reviews. Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiAuthenticator writes "A reasonably priced solution that can be scaled toward different functionalities and offers flexible SMS messaging". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Entra ID writes "Allows users to authenticate from home and has excellent integrations in a simple, stable solution". Fortinet FortiAuthenticator is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Fortinet FortiToken, Fortinet FortiNAC, Cisco Duo and CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, whereas Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Yubico YubiKey and PingFederate. See our Fortinet FortiAuthenticator vs. Microsoft Entra ID report.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) vendors, best Authentication Systems vendors, and best Identity Management (IM) vendors.
We monitor all Single Sign-On (SSO) 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.