Azure Firewall Reviews

We use the solution as an internal firewall device.

The solution provides a good link to Azure and SQL servers.

It would be nice to be able to create groupings for servers and offer groups of IP addresses.

I would, also, like to see the manager built into the solution more, such as concerns Azure Firewall Manager. 

I would also like to see some of the items that come with the preview version for the next version with IDS be addressed, as well as the ability to categorize websites, which is done with external traffic.

We have been using Azure Firewall for around a year. 

The solution has the same stability as Azure.

The solution should be capable of self-scaling, which is one of the features we like about it. We have not encountered any issues with this. 

We have never been in contact with technical support concerning the firewall bits, although we have spoken to them about the solution in a more general context.

I would rate the technical support as a seven-point-five out of ten. 

The initial setup was simple.

The deployment of the firewall took about five minutes and full deployment through the Azure mechanism lasted around an hour.

The solution does not require any maintenance. 

We handled the initial setup internally. 

Azure Firewall is quite an expensive product. It can be challenging to work out the price as the fee varies depending on the amount of data that is run with the solution.

Only the built-in usage level incurs licensing fees. There are no additional ones. 

Cisco ASA is a better product. The ASA offers VPN functionality that is not found in Azure Firewall, although an ESA can be used as a simple alternative. It's much easier to deploy the Azure Firewall in high availability mode and to make it more scalable.

I would estimate the number of people in our organization who are utilizing the solution to be 100 +.

My advice to others is to set up a free account and try it. It's relatively easy to do. Only this way can a person see if the solution suits his needs. 

I rate Azure Firewall as a seven out of ten. 

High availability is built in, so no additional load balancers are required and there's nothing you need to configure 

Azure Firewall can be configured during deployment to span multiple Availability Zones for increased availability

You can limit outbound HTTP/S traffic or Azure SQL traffic (preview) to a specified list of fully qualified domain names (FQDN) including wild cards. This feature doesn't require TLS termination.

You can centrally create allow or deny network filtering rules by source and destination IP address, port, and protocol. Azure Firewall is fully stateful, so it can distinguish legitimate packets for different types of connections

Threat intelligence  -based filtering can be enabled for your firewall to alert and deny traffic from/to known malicious IP addresses and domains

Inbound Internet network traffic to your firewall public IP address is translated (Destination Network Address Translation) and filtered to the private IP addresses on your virtual networks.

They can improve the pricing of Azure Firewall. 

I have been using this solution for maybe one year. We are a gold partner with Microsoft.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have around 200 users, and we have around 10 members for maintenance.

It is easy to set up. It took around 1 hour.

Azure Firewall is more expensive. If Microsoft can make Azure Firewall cheaper, I can see that all clients will think of using it.

One client used FortiGate because it is much cheaper. Some clients ask me for Cisco, but in the cloud estimate, I found its cost is the same as Azure Firewall. 

Azure Firewall is the best to use with all Microsoft solutions. I also use Fortinet, Sophos, and Cisco. It's about the client's priority, that is, what they request.

I would recommend Azure Firewall, but it is all about the client's priority and budget. If a client wants to use Azure Firewall, we do that. If the clients wants FortiGate or Sophos, or the cost is higher for the clients to use Azure Firewall, they can move to FortiGate or Sophos. For low budget or low cost, I recommend FortiGate. 

I would rate Azure Firewall an eight out of ten. 

I like its order management feature. It doesn't have the kind of threat intelligence that Palo Alto has, but the order management makes it much simpler to know the difference.

The threat intelligence part could be better. I don't see why our customers have to get an additional solution with Azure Firewall. It would be great if they made it on par with Palo Alto.

I have been using Azure Firewall for around six months.

It seems stable, and I haven't had any issues.

We don't have to bother about scalability at all as Microsoft fixes it. It's much simpler and the reason why I like it.

The initial setup is simple. 

I would definitely recommend it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Azure Firewall an eight.

I design the architecture and it's an extension of the on-premise that we house on the cloud. We secure the entry point to the virtual data center with the firewall.

There are a number of things that need to be simplified, but it's mostly costs. It needs to be simplified because it's pretty expensive.

I have been using Azure Firewall for two years. 

To date, I haven't had any issue and I didn't have a requirement to scale, at this stage.

The initial setup is straightforward. We define the setup on templates, we haven't had any specific issues.

I would rate it a six out of ten. It's good enough but it's not as good as other virtual appliances. It's good enough. 

I'm a consultant and our primary use case is for traditional corporate networks. We have about 100 people using the solution. 

Performance and stability are the key features of this product, but the reasonable cost is also an important positive factor. 

I think that their customer support could be improved with a faster response time. 

I think the product could be made more customizable, I'd like to see that in the next release.

We've been using this solution for many years. 

It's a stable solution. 

The technical support could be improved, we use the online support. 

The initial setup was quite difficult. 

I would highly recommend this product. 

I would rate this product an eight out of 10.