We performed a comparison between Azure Firewall and OPNsense based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We are very happy with the general bandwidth agility we have seen from one website to another website."
"The solution is extremely reliable."
"Their reliability and their policy of pre-shipping replacements when a unit has failed."
"User-friendly and affordable security solution that's recommended for SMB customers. This solution has good technical support."
"FortiGate's web and URL filtering are unlike any other firewall I've used. The functionality of URL filtering in those solutions is problematic because everything is encrypted, and firewalls can't break that encryption protocol. Fortinet has an SSL proxy, so the encryption is done before the packet ever leaves the FortiGate. The URL filter is definitely one of the most helpful features."
"The tool is a nice product and easy to handle. The software's user interface is also good. You can easily implement remote access in the solution."
"The dashboard I have found the most valuable in Fortinet FortiGate."
"The IPS is good. It protect my network from attackers."
"Azure Firewall is a cloud-native solution that removes the pain of load balancers."
"Microsoft's technical support is very good. They're quite knowledgable and responsive."
"The solution has many useful features. For example, the solution allows users to create virtual IP addresses."
"I like its order management feature. It doesn't have the kind of threat intelligence that Palo Alto has, but the order management makes it much simpler to know the difference."
"The most valuable feature is the integration into the overall cloud platform."
"Azure's cost-effectiveness is its major advantage."
"We secure the entry point to the virtual data center with the firewall."
"Performance and stability are the key features of this product."
"OPNsense could improve by making the configuration more web-based rather than shell or command-line-based."
"The graphic user interface is very good and it is user-friendly which makes the product easy-to-use."
"The system in general is quite flexible."
"We can open a new VPN connection easily. It's much easier than with Fortinet in our experience."
"I feel that its valuable features are that it is simple and free."
"The VPN server feature is the most valuable. It is integrated with Radius and AAA for doing accounting and authentication. Insight view is also an important feature for me at this time. It allows me to assess our network traffic. I also like the firewall feature. The BSD kernel has a packet filter. It is one of the most solid frameworks for firewalls. Its user interface is one of the best interfaces I have used."
"It's more secure and more reliable."
"It has an open license. It works very well, and there is an update every month."
"You do need some IT knowledge in order to effectively work with the solution."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"I would like to see improvements made to the dashboard and UI, as well as to the reporting."
"In terms of what could be improved, the SD-WAN is quite difficult, because if you install the new box, 15 is okay, but if you change from an old configuration, if there is already configuration and a policy when you change to SD-WAN, you must change the whole policy that you see in the interface."
"Compared to some other products, the DLP is not at par for the moment."
"The setup is pretty complex and not easy to implement."
"Fortinet doesn't provide multiple virtual firewalls which would facilitate end users and customers."
"I need user-behavior analytics, to find threat scenarios from inside the organization, insider attacks. That would be very helpful for us. In addition, I would like next-generation features for small and medium businesses. These businesses require UTM, all in one product. Fortinet must include it."
"This solution is not mature when it comes to handling perimeter traffic like internet browsing."
"It would be nice to be able to create groupings for servers and offer groups of IP addresses."
"The threat intelligence part could be better. I don't see why our customers have to get an additional solution with Azure Firewall. It would be great if they made it on par with Palo Alto."
"There are a number of things that need to be simplified, but it's mostly costs. It needs to be simplified because it's pretty expensive."
"You have to have a defined IP range within your network to associate it with your network. The problem is you have to plan ahead of time if you expect to use the firewall in the future so that you don't have to reconfigure your subnets or that specific IP range. Other than that, I don't any issues. I use it for basic configuration for a single application, so I really don't try to leverage it for multiple applications where I might find some complexity or challenges."
"They can improve the pricing of Azure Firewall."
"Azure Firewall has limited visibility for IDPS, no TLS inspection, no app ID, no user ID, no content ID, no device ID. There is no antivirus or anti-spyware. Azure Firewall doesn't scan traffic for malware unless it triggers an IDPS signature. There is no sandbox or machine learning functionality, meaning we are not protected from Zero-day threats. There is no DNS security and limited web categories."
"The product could be made more customizable."
"You will need additional training before you can actually start to use it."
"I think the most important thing is that it should be easily accessible, but currently, that doesn't seem to be the case. We need a hardware platform that's based on common standards and open computing principles, which would be like a commodity and benefit us greatly."
"While they do have paid options that actually gives better features, for most of the clients, if they tend to take a paid option will instead opt for Fortinet."
"The user interface could be improved, and the DNS section should be more intuitive."
"In terms of improvement, the performance could be enhanced."
"The ability to set the VPN IP address would be a welcome addition."
"There are issues with stability and reliability."
"OPNsense showed me some problems when using it in different environments. The problem is integration with a virtual server."
Azure Firewall is ranked 21st in Firewalls with 33 reviews while OPNsense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 36 reviews. Azure Firewall is rated 7.2, while OPNsense is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Firewall writes "Easy to use and configure but could be more robust". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OPNsense writes "Robust network security and management offering a user-friendly interface, open-source flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, with challenges regarding initial setup and the absence of official support". Azure Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and Zscaler Cloud Firewall, whereas OPNsense is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos UTM and IPFire. See our Azure Firewall vs. OPNsense report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.
