Product details — Authentication & Identity
Microsoft Entra ID
This page is a decision brief, not a review. It explains when Microsoft Entra ID tends to fit, where it usually struggles, and how costs behave as your needs change. This page covers Microsoft Entra ID in isolation; side-by-side comparisons live on separate pages.
Quick signals
What this product actually is
Microsoft Entra ID is workforce identity when you’re already standardized on Microsoft 365/Azure. Great for conditional access and governance; heavier for pure customer CIAM flows.
Pricing behavior (not a price list)
These points describe when users typically pay more, what actions trigger upgrades, and the mechanics of how costs escalate.
Actions that trigger upgrades
- Need stronger conditional access policies (device/risk controls)
- Need identity governance (reviews, approvals, lifecycle) at scale
- Need advanced security reporting and incident response capabilities
- Need hybrid identity integration and consistent access policies
- Need enterprise support/SLA for identity as core infrastructure
When costs usually spike
- Hybrid directory setups add ongoing operational overhead
- Governance features require process ownership, not just licensing
- Large tenants need strict admin role design to avoid policy drift
- Cross-tenant complexity appears quickly in M&A and multi-org setups
- Customer identity use cases can expand scope beyond Entra’s defaults
Plans and variants (structural only)
Grouped by type to show structure, not to rank or recommend specific SKUs.
Plans
- Core - Included/tenant-based - Baseline directory identity (varies by Microsoft licensing)
- Security - Per-user add-ons - Conditional access and advanced controls (see pricing page)
- Governance - Per-user add-ons - Reviews, lifecycle, and governance workflows (see pricing page)
Costs & limitations
Common limits
- Microsoft-centric: non-Microsoft stacks can feel second-class
- Complexity increases across tenants, subscriptions, and governance needs
- Some advanced identity governance features require upgrades
- Developer-first CIAM flows may be heavier than Auth0/Clerk/Firebase
- Feature sprawl can make “what plan includes what” hard to manage
- Cross-tenant and hybrid directory scenarios add operational work
What breaks first
- Admin complexity as policies and roles proliferate
- B2B/partner access governance if ownership isn’t clear
- Migration complexity when consolidating multiple tenants
- Developer velocity if customer auth is forced into workforce patterns
- Security posture if conditional access is inconsistently applied
Fit assessment
Good fit if…
- Organizations standardized on Microsoft 365 and Azure
- Workforce identity with conditional access and centralized governance
- IT/security teams already operating Microsoft security tooling
- B2B partner access and collaboration scenarios
- Teams that want to avoid introducing another IdP vendor
Poor fit if…
- You want a developer-first CIAM platform for customer login flows
- Your stack is primarily non-Microsoft and you need neutral integrations
- You need maximum customization over auth UX and flows
- You want usage-based MAU pricing for customer auth
- You need simple auth for a small app without enterprise governance
Trade-offs
Every design choice has a cost. Here are the explicit trade-offs:
- Ecosystem integration → Strongest for Microsoft-heavy orgs
- Enterprise governance → More complexity than developer-first auth layers
- Default availability → May not match product-team CIAM needs
- Broad feature set → Harder to reason about entitlements and rollout
- Centralized identity → Requires operational discipline
Common alternatives people evaluate next
These are common “next shortlists” — same tier, step-down, step-sideways, or step-up — with a quick reason why.
-
Okta — Same tier / workforce IAMCommon alternative when comparing enterprise-grade workforce SSO/MFA and governance depth.
-
OneLogin — Same tier / workforce IAMEvaluated as a workforce SSO/MFA alternative for mixed environments.
-
Auth0 — Step-sideways / CIAMShortlisted when the primary need is customer identity flows rather than workforce directory governance.
Sources & verification
Pricing and behavioral information comes from public documentation and structured research. When information is incomplete or volatile, we prefer to say so rather than guess.