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

Azure Firewall Manager vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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
5.4
Number of Reviews
9
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 October 2026, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Azure Firewall Manager is 3.7%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 8.8%, up from 6.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewall Security Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Palo Alto Networks Panorama8.8%
Azure Firewall Manager3.7%
Other87.5%
Firewall Security Management
 

Featured Reviews

Sikkander  Batcha - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
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

"The solution has improved our organization with its firewall."
"It has helped us in multiple ways; for example, we don't require different spaces to manage it, we can do a lot of automation integrations into the code, we could integrate it into the DevOps pipeline, and it has helped us with our time-to-market for a very specific product when we are actually deploying or upgrading."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Firewall Manager is the testing and configuration."
"The solution is very easy to set up."
"The best feature of Azure Firewall Manager is that it is easy to maintain and configure."
"I would definitely recommend the solution to my clients, especially if one is using Azure Cloud."
"The tool's support is good."
"Azure Firewall Manager centralizes network security management with a hub and spoke architecture."
"Support from Palo Alto is very good."
"The solution offers good logging features, the management is great, it is easy to set up, the solution is stable, I can scale well, and using a Palo Alto solution is very straightforward."
"It has shared profiles for all gateways. If I do not have Panorama, I need to create a separate profile for each and every gateway by logging into that particular gateway, but with Panorama, I can create a shared profile and just push it down to each and every gateway connected to it."
"It's easy to deploy any software or policies."
"Implementing Palo Alto Panorama is something I would strongly recommend for people who are considering it that have a need for this kind of security solution."
"I really like the product."
"With the URL filtering, we probably went down from around four hours in response time to about five minutes."
"The granular control of Palo Alto Networks Panorama stands out for me, as you have centralized management or a centralized view for all the firewalls."
 

Cons

"The configuration and settings require substantial time for learning, particularly for new users. Improvements in ease of configuration would benefit users significantly."
"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."
"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."
"The solution can improve the integration with open-source tools."
"Azure charges for many aspects including scaling, automated scaling deployment, and traffic management, which leads to higher costs."
"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."
"We could do only one-way NAT-ing, where the traffic comes from outside to internal, to Azure, which is fine. However, when we actually do NAT-ed traffic to hit the firewall, that way is not working."
"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."
"Aside from pricing, I don't have any issues with Panorama."
"It is very hard to understand the platform. It is not easy and user-friendly."
"They need to do less bug-related releases and create versions that are stable for at least six months at a time. I don't find this issue in other solutions like Cisco, Check Point, FortiGate, or others. Those just provide a patch if there is a bug and we don't have to worry about downtime."
"They can improve its cloud integration."
"When extracting reports to a CSV file, the lack of correlation to the actual report generated is an issue. You get a CSV file with a vague name, which is inconvenient when sorting through multiple reports."
"There is always room for improvement in anything."
"Reporting might be an area to improve. It can provide reporting or some sort of graphical representation of your environment."
"In terms of scalability, it is complicated because you have to scale up. Its scalability could be better."
 

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 price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be lower."
"It has freed up staff time, which is where we are seeing ROI."
"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."
"Everyone, I suppose, would like the price to be improved. Price is always a good thing to change."
"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."
"You can buy the hardware only and each box is not even $10,000. It's only $8,000 for the unit itself. However, then you are charged a three-year license at $81,000."
"Palo Alto is expensive and there are many cheaper firewalls, but they do not work as well."
"It is very affordable when compared to more expensive firewalls."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.
916,956 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

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 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: September 2026.
916,956 professionals have used our research since 2012.