No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

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
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Microsoft Security Suite (25th)
Palo Alto Networks Panorama
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
93
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Azure Firewall Manager is 3.2%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 8.5%, up from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewall Security Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Palo Alto Networks Panorama8.5%
Azure Firewall Manager3.2%
Other88.3%
Firewall Security Management
 

Featured Reviews

Poornachandar  Madipoju - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior cloud Engineer at Softcell Technologies Limited
Centralized policies have streamlined multi-tenant security and now need better visibility tools
Azure Firewall Manager could be improved with better end-to-end visibility and more advanced policy simulation before deployment. We would also like more intuitive troubleshooting for rule conflicts, enhanced logging and analytics for policy impact analysis, and a more unified dashboard to simplify managing complex multi-region and multi-tenant firewall architecture. Another key improvement area for Azure Firewall Manager is better operational user experience for large-scale environments. We would benefit from more granular policy versioning and rollback controls, clearer change impact analysis before pushing updates, and deeper integration with monitoring tools to proactively detect misconfiguration or policy conflicts across hub and spoke deployments.
Richard Dombo - PeerSpot reviewer
Application Support Administrator at Meridian Port Services
Monitoring and managing multiple firewalls has become more efficient through centralized oversight and reliable logging
I would say that while Palo Alto Networks Panorama reporting capability is functional, it is not really intuitive. The presentation is not really as advanced as what an advanced solution would have provided. I would like to improve the dashboards on Palo Alto Networks Panorama, especially because I work in an environment where my managers are not really that technical. They do a great job leading us, but they do not have a technical background. If the dashboard could be improved to suit more executive use cases when it comes to reporting, that would be excellent. It is basic as far as I am concerned, and from an executive standpoint, it is not really that good. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama as a product nine or 9.5 out of ten because there is always room for improvement, especially on the dashboard. I think if they could improve the dashboard, I would give them ten out of ten because from a technical standpoint, the dashboard is good, but at an executive level, it is not really that good. I usually struggle when doing presentations to my bosses because the dashboard and reporting from Palo Alto Networks Panorama are not as polished as they could be.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"I would definitely recommend the solution to my clients, especially if one is using Azure Cloud."
"Azure Firewall Manager centralizes network security management with a hub and spoke architecture."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Firewall Manager is the testing and configuration."
"The solution has improved our organization with its firewall."
"From a traffic management perspective, it's a good firewall because it's automatically scalable based on the traffic availability."
"The best feature of Azure Firewall Manager is that it is easy to maintain and configure."
"The most valuable feature is the web firewall, as it is easy to install and does not require any plugins for your browser."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama is stable."
"It is very stable, from my experience, at least."
"It allows administrators to manage all firewalls from a single interface, reducing the time and effort required for configuration."
"I find this solution valuable for full monitoring, centralized control for reporting, and centralized management."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama has a lot of features."
"Overall, the functionality was very good."
"You can easily troubleshoot any issue, you will also get clear information, and, in general, it's a very good product that allows you to manage more than one device from a central interface."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its innovation and impressive capacity to handle network traffic efficiently."
 

Cons

"The tool's security features need to improve. It needs also to include a monitoring system for logs. It is also complicated to find a query on the Azure firewall."
"Azure charges for many aspects including scaling, automated scaling deployment, and traffic management, which leads to higher costs."
"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."
"With Azure Firewall, the problem is that the NAT-ing still has to be improved."
"The solution can improve the integration with open-source tools."
"The price is okay. This said, the solution is certainly expensive in comparison with other cloud services."
"The configuration and settings require substantial time for learning, particularly for new users. Improvements in ease of configuration would benefit users significantly."
"Customer support is good, and the response time is sometimes late for complex issues, but for simple issues, the response time is very low."
"It could be more secure."
"They can improve its cloud integration."
"There were a few bugs a couple of years into it. There was a big bug where it had trouble communicating with the two main boxes."
"The pricing is quite high."
"The product could offer more integration with other solutions."
"Price is probably one of the biggest things that we struggle with, specifically with Palo, and that's across their whole portfolio."
"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 should be reconsidered. It's too high right now."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the solution is reasonable but it is reasonable for the features."
"The solution is certainly expensive in comparison with other cloud services."
"The pricing is considered a little bit expensive, but depending on the client, it's worth it."
"Licensing fees are paid yearly."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is high. There is a pay-per-use model."
"Initially, Palo Alto looks expensive, but if you dig deeper then you will find that it is very comparable, or even cheaper than other solutions."
"The solution is priced a bit higher than competitors."
"Its licensing is yearly and multi-yearly. It is not expensive."
"The price of Panorama is expensive."
"If I were to rate the pricing of Palo on a scale of one to five, with one being really high and five being a good, reasonable price, I would rate Palo as a three."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.
899,917 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business34
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Firewall Manager?
The pricing for Azure Firewall Manager is expensive. In our project, we have used both Palo Alto Firewall and Azure Firewall. Azure charges for many aspects including scaling, automated scaling dep...
What needs improvement with Azure Firewall Manager?
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...
What is your primary use case for Azure Firewall Manager?
My customers are using Azure Firewall Manager, so I'm learning from both documentation and practical knowledge. I usually recommend Azure Firewall Manager for projects such as an animal hospital pr...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
We did not purchase Palo Alto Networks Panorama through the Azure Marketplace. We purchased it directly through Palo Alto.
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
From a monitoring perspective, if we could improve on data retention and keep it for quite a long time, such as 90 days of data retention, that would be good for us to manage our CPU usage, as we c...
What is your primary use case for Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
My main use case for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is to manage our firewalls. We have around 450 firewalls, and we manage them through Panorama. Configuration entry is the primary focus of our use.
 

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: June 2026.
899,917 professionals have used our research since 2012.