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
11th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
9
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
93
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Azure Firewall Manager is 3.6%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 8.8%, up from 7.1% 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 Manager3.6%
Other87.6%
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 is very easy to set up."
"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."
"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 tool's support is good."
"I would definitely recommend the solution to my clients, especially if one is using Azure Cloud."
"The solution has improved our organization with its firewall."
"The best feature of Azure Firewall Manager is that it is easy to maintain and configure."
"We decided to use Palo Alto Networks Panorama over other solutions because we have the strategy sheet which defines our requirements, and our requirements were mostly met."
"The product can scale."
"The solution, especially the latest versions, is very stable."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its innovation and impressive capacity to handle network traffic efficiently."
"The main value of Palo Alto Networks Panorama lies in its ability to centralize management, similar to FortiManager."
"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."
"Panorama enables you to provision all your firewalls and other things as a cluster. It is quite useful for that."
"Panorama has the capacity for SD-WAN configuration, which is appreciated alongside its capabilities for firewall management and firmware upgrades."
 

Cons

"Microsoft was unable to fully solve the problem with email phishing and spamming."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"With Azure Firewall, the problem is that the NAT-ing still has to be improved."
"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 alerts in Palo Alto Networks Panorama could improve by integration with other systems, such as a forwarding trigger system. For example, if a customer has their own system it would be helpful to have the alarms integrated."
"Storage in Palo Alto Networks Panorama needs improvement. My company also experienced deployment issues when the product was first installed, particularly when binding with the firewall. It's not as user-friendly because not everyone can deploy it without some knowledge."
"The initial setup can be complex."
"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."
"At times we have noticed that we get into issues where Panorama is going too slow or has other little problems. The performance can suffer occasionally."
"The configuration could be a bit better."
"Sometimes in Palo Alto Networks Panorama, we receive issues where it is overloaded and unresponsive. We have issues with accessing the devices due to a slow response from Panorama."
 

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."
"There is a license needed to use Palo Alto Networks Panorama. The cost is not that important, what is important is meeting all the requirements and security features."
"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."
"The solution is expensive and could be cheaper."
"It is not a cheap solution."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is high. There is a pay-per-use model."
"The price of the licenses could be lower. Still, because we have Panorama with 25 firewalls, Palo Alto gives us a good discount."
"The solution is relatively cheap; I rate it four out of five for affordability."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama should be reduced. We pay for the solution annually."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.
914,109 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%
Comms Service Provider
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.
914,109 professionals have used our research since 2012.