Azure Firewall Manager vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama comparison

Microsoft and Palo Alto Networks are both solutions in the Firewall Security Management category. Microsoft is ranked #10 with an average rating of 9.3, while Palo Alto Networks is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.5. Microsoft holds a 2.8% mindshare in Firewall Security Management, compared to Palo Alto Networks’s 7.8% mindshare. Additionally, 85% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 97% of Palo Alto Networks users who would recommend it.

Azure Firewall Manager

Read 9 Azure Firewall Manager reviews

1,084 Views
618 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Read 93 Palo Alto Networks Panorama reviews

4,195 Views
3,692 Comparison Views

97% willing to recommend

Azure Firewall Manager

Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Azure Firewall Manager are competing in the network security management space. Panorama is often considered superior due to its robust security features and advanced threat prevention capabilities.

Features: Palo Alto Networks Panorama offers advanced threat prevention, centralized security management, and user-friendly interfaces that make it a strong option for large-scale operations. It provides comprehensive dashboards and a single pane of glass management approach. Azure Firewall Manager focuses on straightforward policy management, seamless integration with Azure services, and native support for cloud environments, making it ideal for organizations within the Azure ecosystem.

Room for Improvement: Palo Alto Networks Panorama could enhance automation capabilities and improve its cloud integration features. It may also benefit from a more intuitive initial configuration process. Azure Firewall Manager might expand its range of security features beyond basic functionality and improve support for non-Azure environments. There is also room for improving threat prevention capabilities and management interface enhancements.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Palo Alto Networks Panorama offers flexible deployment options and excellent support, making it suitable for tailored security solutions. Azure Firewall Manager simplifies deployment within Azure environments with built-in support and offers ease of integration, particularly for businesses already using Microsoft services.

Pricing and ROI: Palo Alto Networks Panorama might require a higher initial investment, but it offers long-term ROI with its advanced security measures. Azure Firewall Manager presents a more competitive pricing model for Azure users and integrates cost-effectively into Azure subscriptions, offering potential cost savings for businesses heavily utilizing Azure infrastructure.

To learn more, read our detailed Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 886,576 peers since 2012

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

Ranking in other categories

Microsoft Security Suite (26th)

Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Ranking in Firewall Security Management

4th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Azure Firewall Manager is 2.8%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 7.8%, down from 8.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Firewall Security Management Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Palo Alto Networks Panorama	7.8%
Azure Firewall Manager	2.8%
Other	89.4%

Firewall Security Management

Featured Reviews

Sikkander Batcha

DevOps Engineer at CloudIQ

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.

Read full review

Richard Dombo

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The best feature of Azure Firewall Manager is that it is easy to maintain and configure."

"It is easy to install and does not require any plugins for your browser."

"The solution is very easy to set up."

"The tool's support is good."

"Azure Firewall Manager centralizes network security management with a hub and spoke architecture."

"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."

"The most valuable feature of Azure Firewall Manager is the testing and configuration."

"From a traffic management perspective, it's a good firewall because it's automatically scalable based on the traffic availability."

More Azure Firewall Manager pros

"The ability to manage a large number of firewalls from a single point is most valuable."

"The telemetry visibility is really good as well as the automated workflows for creating policies. The overall solution is quite intuitive to use."

"The application ID or App-ID feature is a good feature for us. We are also using IPS and content inspection features. The firewall can inspect the packages that are passing through my network."

"Palo Alto Networks Panorama is both scalable and stable."

"We are attracted to Palo Alto because it is stable."

"Palo Alto is constantly improving its solutions."

"The fact that you can push out your Prisma Access just dynamically and it changes into Prisma Access Cloud is fantastic."

"These features are instrumental in achieving effective results."

More Palo Alto Networks Panorama pros

Cons

"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."

"Microsoft was unable to fully solve the problem with email phishing and spamming."

"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."

"The price is okay. This said, the solution is certainly expensive in comparison with other cloud services."

"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."

"The solution can improve the integration with open-source tools."

More Azure Firewall Manager cons

"An area for improvement would be the connectivity, which sometimes means logs can be slow to display."

"The integration between Strata Cloud Manager and Panorama could be enhanced to allow customers to stay on Panorama for many years while still utilizing Strata Cloud Manager for deployment."

"There needs to be an improvement in integrating AIOps functionalities into Panorama."

"Reporting might be an area to improve. It can provide reporting or some sort of graphical representation of your environment."

"Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a more expensive solution than competitors. They should lower the price to stay competitive."

"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."

"I would like to see remote VPN, like the Cisco client."

More Palo Alto Networks Panorama cons

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."

"Its cost is quite high."

"Sometimes the company prefers to give a license to test the product in our environment before we go to the customer. But the customer should buy his own license, and that's the system here. The system is different between one country and another. Some countries say that the IT solutions provider should provide the license."

"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."

"The solution is priced well and there is a license for this solution that we pay annually for."

"Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a more expensive solution than competitors. They should lower the price to stay competitive."

"The pricing could be lower."

"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be lower."

"The solution is expensive and could be cheaper."

More Palo Alto Networks Panorama pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

886,576 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Construction Company

11%

Educational Organization

Comms Service Provider

11%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	2

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	33
Midsize Enterprise	15
Large Enterprise	46

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...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Azure Firewall Manager?

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Comparisons

FortiGate Cloud-Native Firewall (FortiGate CNF) vs Azure Firewall Manager

Compared 19% of the time

Azure Firewall vs Azure Firewall Manager

Compared 14% of the time

AlgoSec vs Azure Firewall Manager

Compared 13% of the time

Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Azure Firewall Manager

Compared 9% of the time

FireMon Security Manager vs Azure Firewall Manager

Compared 8% of the time

More Azure Firewall Manager Competitors

Fortinet FortiManager vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Compared 13% of the time

AlgoSec vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Compared 13% of the time

FireMon Security Manager vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Compared 11% of the time

Tufin Orchestration Suite vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Compared 9% of the time

Cisco Security Cloud Control vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Compared 4% of the time

More Palo Alto Networks Panorama Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Azure Firewall Manager

April 2026

Download Azure Firewall Manager product report

Buyer's Guide

Palo Alto Networks Panorama

March 2026

Download Palo Alto Networks Panorama product report

Overview

Azure Firewall Manager is a security management service that provides central security policy and route management for cloud-based security perimeters.

To learn more about our solution, ask questions, and share feedback, join our Microsoft Security, Compliance and Identity Community.

Microsoft

Panorama network security management provides static rules and dynamic security updates in an ever-changing threat landscape. Reduce administrator workload and improve your overall security posture with a single rule base for firewall, threat prevention, URL filtering, application awareness, user identification, file blocking and data filtering.

Palo Alto Networks

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia

Buyer's Guide

Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama

April 2026

Free Report: Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

886,576 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama report.

See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.

We monitor all Firewall Security Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.