We performed a comparison between Microsoft Entra ID and Red Hat Single Sign On based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Single Sign-On (SSO) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of this solution are definitely the authorization and authentication, and the rule-based user validation."
"It is pretty good in terms of stability."
"We can centralize and manage everything much more effectively with this tool."
"The most valuable feature is the authentication platform."
"As an end-user, the access to shared resources that I get from using this product is very helpful."
"Azure Active Directory provides us with identity-based authentication, which secures access at the user level and also integrates with conditional access policies and multi-factor authentication helping to increase the identity security for that person. So, the hacking and leaking of passwords is a secondary problem because you will not authenticate a person with one factor. There is a second factor of authentication available to increase the security premise for your company."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Entra ID is its security options, where we can provide highly effective security for user accounts during authentication."
"The most valuable features are the Conditional Access policies, SSPR, and MFA. Another good functionality is registering enterprise applications to provide access to external parties. These four features are precious and are the most used across different use cases for various clients and projects."
"Red Hat SSO has a lot of very concise, well laid out documentation, which is available in the free edition as well."
"Red Hat SSO integrates well with our other solutions. Using OIDC protocols and ITL integration, employees can authenticate with Red Hat SSO and access our microservices."
"Good support for single sign-on protocols."
"The product’s most valuable feature is its ability to assign only one password for the user at a false value."
"It is very easy to scale and use as you want."
"When we add some user groups, at times they will not be properly configured. Also, sometimes Azure AD is not aware of the group policy, like the control, device functions, and settings, in detail. For example, you cannot configure these settings through mobile devices. It doesn't provide the flexibility to do that. The other challenge is that a third-party application may provide access without authorization."
"We have a custom solution now running to tie all those Azure ADs together. We use the B2B functionality for that. Improvements are already on the roadmap for Azure AD in that area. I think they will make it easier to work together between two different tenants in Azure AD, because normally one tenant is a security boundary. For example, company one has a tenant and company two has a tenant, and then you can do B2B collaboration between those, but it is still quite limited. For our use case, it is enough currently. However, if we want to extend the collaboration even further, then we need an easier way to collaborate between two tenants, but I think that is already on the roadmap of Azure AD anyway."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"Maybe there could be a dashboard view for Active Directory with some pie or bar charts on who is logged in, who is not logged in, and on the activity of each user for the past few days: whether they're active or not active."
"They should put the features of P1 and P2 into a single license."
"A nice feature that is not currently present, would be if they had some visualization tools."
"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."
"The visibility in the GUI is not good for management. There are a lot of improvements that could make it better. It should be more user-friendly overall. It is not user-friendly because everything keeps changing on the platform. I can understand it because I know the platform, am familiar with it, and use it every day. However, for a lot of clients, they don't use it every day or are not familiar with it, so it should be more user friendly."
"Security could be improved."
"The product’s technical support services could be better."
"They could provide more checks and balances to find out if there have been any security lapses, e.g., if somebody is trying to break into the system. Some other products have these detection mechanisms in case someone is trying to hack into the system or find out a user's passwords."
"Red Hat SSO's architecture could be updated."
Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 190 reviews while Red Hat Single Sign On is ranked 11th in Single Sign-On (SSO) with 4 reviews. Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6, while Red Hat Single Sign On is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Microsoft Entra ID writes "Allows users to authenticate from home and has excellent integrations in a simple, stable solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Red Hat Single Sign On writes "It is very easy to scale and use as you want, but there could be more checks and balances to find out if there have been any security lapses". Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Yubico YubiKey and Cisco Duo, whereas Red Hat Single Sign On is most compared with Auth0, Okta Workforce Identity, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, PingFederate and AWS IAM Identity Center. See our Microsoft Entra ID vs. Red Hat Single Sign On report.
See our list of best Single Sign-On (SSO) 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.
