Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Azure Firewall Manager vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Azure Firewall Manager
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
10th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
4.8
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (28th)
Palo Alto Networks Panorama
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
91
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Azure Firewall Manager is 1.9%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 6.9%, down from 9.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewall Security Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Palo Alto Networks Panorama6.9%
Azure Firewall Manager1.9%
Other91.2%
Firewall Security Management
 

Featured Reviews

Sikkander  Batcha - PeerSpot reviewer
Has managed traffic effectively but lacks visibility and advanced control features
Azure Firewall is typically behind other vendor firewalls because we don't see what kind of traffic is traveling through it. That is one drawback. The main drawback is that we need log support from Azure Firewall, which can be quite costly. There is no login feature in Azure Firewall because only the IAM feature is available in the Azure site; we manage it only through the Azure portal, not through any other portal. Other vendors, such as Palo Alto, provide GUI or CLI interfaces to manage their firewalls, whereas we only manage Azure Firewall through the Azure portal. In the future, I would like to see additional features in Azure Firewall Manager to make it more competitive, such as technologies like App-ID and User-ID that Palo Alto has. Azure Firewall currently only allows traffic based on layer four and sometimes layer seven, so they need to improve in those areas compared to other vendors.
Waleed Aboda - PeerSpot reviewer
Centralized monitoring enhances control while seeking greater flexibility and rapid response
I am still working for Lotus. We work with Palo Alto three series, Panorama, and Firewall Banu, specifically Firewall three series and five series I find this solution valuable for full monitoring, centralized control for reporting, and centralized management. These features are instrumental in…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The tool's support is good."
"Azure Firewall Manager centralizes network security management with a hub and spoke architecture."
"The solution has improved our organization with its firewall."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Firewall Manager is the testing and configuration."
"We are utilizing Azure Entra ID for group labeling, so Active Directory, or now it is Entra ID, securing our application for everyone who accesses it, and Azure Firewall Manager is definitely securing our projects and all its features are fine."
"From a traffic management perspective, it's a good firewall because it's automatically scalable based on the traffic availability."
"The solution is very easy to set up."
"The best feature of Azure Firewall Manager is that it is easy to maintain and configure."
"It is really useful for big deployments."
"The solution is suitable for all sized businesses."
"Panorama enables you to provision all your firewalls and other things as a cluster. It is quite useful for that."
"Firewalls: The application ID capabilities have been very useful for things like Active Directory, and not having to identify every port that Microsoft has decided to use."
"Threat prevention and traffic monitoring are the most valuable features for us."
"One of the key advantages of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its unified platform that is quite similar to the firewall interface, making it easier for tech consultants to manage."
"The most valuable features of this solution are that it works better than a normal firewall, easy to explorer all of its features, and it has the Log Collector mode. This mode allows us to store our logs for two years in the solution itself."
"I find this solution valuable for full monitoring, centralized control for reporting, and centralized management."
 

Cons

"The solution can improve the integration with open-source tools."
"The cost is a significant concern because we are in a region where the dollar is not our default currency, and converting to dollars makes it very expensive."
"There should be a simple one-click deployment for a firewall, rather than a set of setup instructions that include steps such as the DNS configuration, et cetera."
"Azure charges for many aspects including scaling, automated scaling deployment, and traffic management, which leads to higher costs."
"The price is okay. This said, the solution is certainly expensive in comparison with other cloud services."
"Azure charges for many aspects including scaling, automated scaling deployment, and traffic management, which leads to higher costs."
"For Azure Firewall Manager, the learning curve for new people is a bit challenging, but the integration should be more straightforward for configuring a centralized system."
"The configuration and settings require substantial time for learning, particularly for new users. Improvements in ease of configuration would benefit users significantly."
"Customer support can improve."
"I am observing that whenever pushing our configurations sometimes the configuration will not push properly and then we have to go to the individual firewall and save it again."
"Its scalability can be improved. It is too expensive to scale it in the way Palo Alto wants us to scale. Scalability is one of the main reasons why our customer is looking for alternatives. It is too expensive to scale. Its redundancy also requires improvement, but it seems that in the latest version, redundancy is improved, and you can have more than two devices in an HA pair. So, they are heading in that direction. It would be good if they combine their dynamic list functionality in a much better way with Panorama and include it as out-of-the-box functionality. Palo Alto supports the dynamic list functionality for some basic threats, but there is a lot of scope for improvement."
"The pricing is quite high."
"The pricing of the solution could be considered an area of improvement, as it is a comprehensive and feature-rich product that may include features that are not needed by some companies."
"The solution requires more flexibility and quicker response times."
"Sometimes technical support is slow to respond."
"The initial setup can be complex."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is certainly expensive in comparison with other cloud services."
"The price of the solution is reasonable but it is reasonable for the features."
"The price of Panorama is expensive."
"We pay approximately $3,000 a year in order to use the product."
"It is very affordable when compared to more expensive firewalls."
"Pricing for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is always high. If you're going to sell the product, you always have to talk about the technology because it should be about the solution rather than the price."
"Its cost is quite high."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is expensive."
"The solution is expensive and could be cheaper."
"The pricing is considered a little bit expensive, but depending on the client, it's worth it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.
870,701 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
21%
Computer Software Company
17%
Government
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business32
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise47
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Azure Firewall Manager?
The most valuable feature of Azure Firewall Manager is the testing and configuration.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Firewall Manager?
The pricing for Azure Firewall Manager seems okay compared to its good features. Although extra expenses are incurred for additional services, these are not directly related to the firewall, and th...
What needs improvement with Azure Firewall Manager?
Azure Firewall Manager is good most of the time, but it could be improved regarding cost. The cost is a significant concern because we are in a region where the dollar is not our default currency, ...
What do you like most about Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
The most valuable aspect of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for me is the centralized management of multiple firewalls.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
If you go with the cloud-based deployment, it is pretty much affordable. If you go with the physical bare-metal hardware, then it is quite expensive.
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
I do see some disadvantages with Panorama. If your staff is not technical enough, you have to be very careful if you have production devices on Panorama because once you push any changes, those get...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
870,701 professionals have used our research since 2012.