Azure Firewall Reviews

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. 

Azure Firewall's feature that I have found most valuable is its scalability.

In terms of what could be improved, it lacks a couple of features which are available in the other marketplace products, but it is stable and it performs most of the basic functions that are expected from a normal firewall.

When we deployed we did not have a centralized management of multiple firewalls. Right now, with Azure Firewall, we cannot have a normal inbound traffic flow. For inbound, Microsoft suggests using application gateways, so the options are very limited. I cannot use this firewall as an intermediate firewall because of the limitations, and I cannot point routing to another firewall. So if I want to use back-to-back firewall architecture in my environment, I cannot use Azure Firewall for that type of configuration either. 

Other features I would like to see are intrusion prevention, URL filtering, category-based URL filtering and other advanced features.

Overall, the configuration can definitely be improved.

In terms of the overall product architecture, if the management and the architecture of the product could support back-to-back firewall architectures so that I could use Azure Firewall in combination with another firewall, that would be one point which would help this product be used more and in a better way.

Again, if the Azure Firewall could be accommodated as a back-to-back firewall, meaning if it could work as a firewall which handles the inbound traffic from the internet, which is an NVA, or a network virtual appliance, and we could reroute the traffic to Azure Firewall, that would be good. But as of now, there is no routing options in Azure Firewall.

I have been using Azure Firewall for eight months.

We are not using the latest version since we deployed it quite some time back.

Azure Firewall is quite stable.

We have thousands of people using it.

Technical support is okay.

Azure Firewall has an easy installation.

I would only recommend Azure Firewall depending on the requirements. If it is an enterprise that has basic requirements and needs to do packet filtering and a certain level of intrusion prevention, so for the level of IP whitelisting, it's a good product.

It is easy to manage and it is scalable.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Azure Firewall a six because of the configuration issue.

In terms of NAT configuration, the configuration management is one issue. Another issue is intrusion prevention with the NAT configuration and the URL category-based filtering features. The ease of manageability and the ease of configuration of these features could be easier.

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.