We performed a comparison between Microsoft Entra ID and RSA Authentication Manager 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."We have not had any formal issues with scalability."
"It is a very straightforward implementation."
"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."
"My two preferred features are conditional access and privileged identity management."
"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."
"It can be used to grant access at a granular level. It provides secure access and many ways to offer security to your user resources. It provides a good level of security for any access on Azure. It gives you options like multi-factor authentication where apart from your password, you can use other factors for authentication, such as a code is sent to your phone or the authenticator app that you can use login."
"It's multi-tenant, residing in multiple locations. The authentication happens quickly. Irrespective of whether I'm in Australia, the US, India, or Africa, I don't see any latency. Those are the good features that I rely on."
"The most valuable feature is the SecurID."
"Easy setup, deployment, and integration in different infrastructures, including virtual ones."
"I have found RSA Authentication Manager to be scalable."
"It stands out as a comprehensive and adaptable solution that excels in both on-premises and cloud-based authentication, offers strong security with multi-layered authentication, and boasts a well-maintained product with reliable performance."
"The most valuable feature is the provision part. The mapping and the logging is also very good. In addition, the troubleshooting, from a console point of view, is easy for administration and on the provisioning and logging part."
"It is a good solution for token identification."
"It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten."
"I would rate it an eight out of ten. The price plays a factor in the rating."
"Azure Active Directory could improve by having an authentication service for laptops or desktop computers running Mac and Linux operating systems. They currently have authentication capabilities for Microsoft Windows. Having this capability would benefit people because in today's world everybody is working from the home environment."
"When you start to deal with legacy applications, provisioning is not as intuitive."
"Azure Active Directory could improve the two-factor authentication."
"The cost of licensing always has room for improvement."
"For the end users, it can be confusing if they have worked for another company that had the Authenticator app. It is tricky if they have already had the Authenticator app and then work somewhere else. If they have to download it again and use it again on their phone, it is something that gets complicated. I know how to get through it. They just need to uninstall and reinstall the application, but for them, sometimes, it is confusing."
"There is a concept of cross-tenant trust relationships, which I believe Microsoft is actively pursuing. That is something which in the coming days and years to come by will be very key to the success of Azure Active Directory, because many organizations are going into mergers and acquisitions or spinning off new companies. They will still have to access the old tenant information because of multiple legal reasons, compliance reasons, and all those things. So, there should be some level of tenant-level trust functionality, where you can bring people from other tenants to access some part of your tenant application. So, that is an area which is growing. I believe Microsoft is actively pursuing this, and it will be an interesting piece."
"I think the documentation and configuration are both areas that need improvement."
"We have encountered issue when trying to expand this particular solution for a large set of users across the country."
"We are not planning on using the solution in the future."
"Enhancing the user interface and expanding their marketing efforts in regions like Nigeria and West Africa could be beneficial."
"There is room for improvement in the RSA support."
"Our major problem is the authentication via Microsoft, via Microsoft cloud systems. This is our major aim, to be a valued product for the future. The biggest problem is to work against cheap cloud systems. Cloud identification is our main problem at this time."
"Perhaps parts of the the user interface should become more intuitive."
"We found technical support was not very responsive to our requests for assistance."
Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Authentication Systems with 190 reviews while RSA Authentication Manager is ranked 14th in Authentication Systems with 10 reviews. Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6, while RSA Authentication Manager is rated 8.2. 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 RSA Authentication Manager writes "A highly effective and versatile solution that excels in terms of security, integration, scalability, and customer support". Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Yubico YubiKey and Cisco Duo, whereas RSA Authentication Manager is most compared with Cisco Duo, RSA SecurID, RSA Adaptive Authentication, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Thales Authenticators. See our Microsoft Entra ID vs. RSA Authentication Manager 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.