Is there a notable difference between Firefox Enterprise and standard Firefox with group policy management[0]?

[0]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox-usi...

There are already some controls in place available, but they are often platform-specific (GPOs on Windows, Configuration Profiles on macOS) than can be pushed through Active Directory, Intune, Ivanti, etc, but this does remove some friction and configuration gaps where you can centrally manage those policies in a single location.

You'll still likely need to push something like an enrollment token for Chrome (ex: https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9301891 ), but then the rest is done through the Firefox Enterprise console.

That's weird. I used to work in a very secure facility (think actual air-gapped supercomputers where network access is building-LAN only) and Firefox was the only approved browser.

The large business I work for cited low usage when they blocked it from being installed a couple of years back.

Large companies' IT departments claim a lot of reasons for their policies. Often the underlying reason is unstated, and has more to do with convenience of governance or with sales relationships.

If my company would tell me what browser should I use for work, I would look away from it. Fortunately all the companies I worked for didn't care what browser I use (even most people used Firefox anyway).

I'd rather not have Firefox installed, than Firefox preloaded with MitM certificates, disabled uBlock Origin, Proxy Switcher, added Adobe, Copilot, and a few more "useful" extensions and security add-ons that can't be disabled, and so on.

If company IT gets hold of Firefox, it's not better than just using Edge or Chrome that comes by default.

Nobody needs 2 browsers to support on locked down computers. There's no increase in functionality apart from making between 0 and 1 extremely niche users slightly more happy (but not more capable).