We performed a comparison between Microsoft Entra ID and RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Identity Management (IM) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The teams we work with at Omada provide great insights and support. Overall, it has been a pleasure working with them. That's the part we value the most."
"You can make resources. You can import them from Azure or Active Directory and put them in an application. For example, if there is an application that uses a lot of Active Directory groups, you can make the groups available for people. If they need to access that application, you can tell them the resource groups you have for that application. People can do everything by themselves. They do not need anybody else. They can just go to the Omada portal, and they can do it all by themselves. That is terrific."
"The administrative features and SoD are valuable."
"Omada's best feature is creating accounts, automatically assigning permissions, and distributing resources based on assignment policies."
"I appreciate all the support we receive from Omada."
"User-friendly solution."
"The most valuable aspects of Omada Identity for me are the automation capabilities."
"The support for the validity of the resources is valuable. The tool allows resource assignments within a validity period so that the managers do not have to remember to revoke the access once the work is done."
"It's pretty easy to implement."
"The solution offers business to business and client to business support."
"Entra ID can be deployed using a hybrid model for organizations with a significant on-premises presence, or in a fully cloud-based setup for those that do not."
"Very stable and scalable IAM service with good SSO and authentication features."
"Azure Active Directory provides access to resources in a very secure manner. We can detect which user is logging in to access resources on the cloud. It gives us a comprehensive audit trace in terms of from where a user signed in and whether a sign-in is a risky sign-in or a normal sign-in. So, there is a lot of security around the access to resources, which helps us in realizing that a particular sign-in is not a normal sign-in. If a sign-in is not normal, Azure Active Directory automatically blocks it for us and sends us an email, and unless we allow that user, he or she won't be able to log in. So, the User Identity Protection feature is the most liked feature for me in Azure Active Directory."
"For some applications, it's not only working for authentication but it's also being used to apply roles for users. From the management perspective, it's much better to have this because in the past we constantly needed to go into the console of the different solutions and create or delete users or modify their roles and permissions. Now, with Azure Active Directory, we can do that from a single point. That makes our management model much easier."
"The valuable features I use daily are enterprise application, conditional access, identity governance, password monitoring, and a password reset."
"It is great for mom-and-pop shops or small businesses that are truly coming into the enterprise ecosystem and that have not come from a legacy environment."
"The data collection is excellent and easy to do. It does not require a lot of configuration nor does it require rules to be written like other competitors do."
"Roles, connectors for provisioning and re-accreditation or reviews help greatly to govern user access."
"With the tool in place, you need to hire fewer people to provide access, and you have control over your processes."
"RSA Identity Governance and lifecycles are good for the access certification and auditing sections."
"The most valuable feature is the security, in particular, the One Time Password support."
"If I had to name one thing, it would be the user interface (UI)."
"One thing that we are not so happy about is the user interface. It is a bit dated. I know that they are working on that, but the user interface is quite dated. Currently, it is a little bit difficult to customize the user interface to the need of the business, which is a little bit disappointing. It needs it to be a little bit easier to operate, and it should have a better user interface."
"The architecture of the entire system should also be less complex. The way they process the data is complex."
"The security permission inside Omada needs improvement. It's tricky to set up."
"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."
"The account management integration isn't bad, but it isn't plug-and-play like Microsoft Azure. You need some deep development knowledge to set up the connectors."
"Improved traceability would be helpful for administrators. For example, let's say a user's permission is being revoked. We can only see the system that has carried out a particular action but not what triggered it. If an event definition or something has changed in the criteria for the permission being removed or something like that, we don't have immediate access to that information. It takes a little detective work."
"The support could be better. Lately, they sort of dropped off a bit in terms of quality."
"Microsoft's technical support has shortcomings where improvements are required."
"Something that can be improved is their user interface"
"The documentation could be better."
"The only issue is the OU is not properly synced. Therefore, you have to do a manual sync sometimes or you might lose the connector due to AD Connect or sync servers."
"Many people believe that the Azure Active Directory is overly complicated and antiquated."
"Microsoft has so many different requirements and priorities that sometimes they don't invest all their energy into the products that you have expectations to investigate."
"They have had a few outages, so stability is a little bit of an issue. It is global. That is the thing. I know some of the other competitors are regionalized ID platforms, but Entra ID is global, so when something goes wrong, it is a problem because it underpins everything, whether you are logging in to M365 or you have single sign-on to Azure, Autopilot, Intune, Exchange mailbox or another application. If there is a problem with Entra ID, all of that falls apart, so its great strength and weakness is the global single tenant for it. Stability is a key area for me. Otherwise, it is generally pretty good."
"Every connector that you have in the product needs to be custom-built, so there are not a lot of standard connectors available in the product, because of which there are a lot of hidden consultancy costs."
"RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle could improve out-of-the-box customization."
"This product is missing a lot of features which other competitors are providing. One of the key features that are missing right now is risk scoring. Additionally, there is not much scope for customization - everything is hard-coded and predefined, so it does not allow the developers to make many modifications."
"There are scalability issues. This product does not scale very well. It is not a good product for load balancing / active–active architecture."
"If you use the appliance version then it won't handle a huge database volume."
"Technical support in Pakistan can be improved."
"The user interface and workflow need improvement, and more connectors would help."
More RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Entra ID is ranked 1st in Identity Management (IM) with 190 reviews while RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is ranked 22nd in Identity Management (IM) with 9 reviews. Microsoft Entra ID is rated 8.6, while RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is rated 6.8. 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 Identity Governance and Lifecycle writes "Lacking customization, poor support, but useful auditing". Microsoft Entra ID is most compared with Microsoft Intune, Google Cloud Identity, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, Yubico YubiKey and Cisco Duo, whereas RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle is most compared with SailPoint IdentityIQ, Saviynt, One Identity Manager, CyberArk Privileged Access Manager and Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine). See our Microsoft Entra ID vs. RSA Identity Governance and Lifecycle report.
See our list of best Identity Management (IM) vendors.
We monitor all Identity Management (IM) 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.
