We performed a comparison between Azure Firewall Manager and Palo Alto Networks Panorama based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewall Security Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of Azure Firewall Manager is the testing and configuration."
"The tool's support is good."
"The solution is very easy to set up."
"It is easy to install and does not require any plugins for your browser."
"The solution has improved our organization with its firewall."
"The threat prevention and layer seven security features were the most used and important for us. All operations are quite good in this solution."
"Our team has the option to make configuration changes at any given time."
"The ability to manage a large number of firewalls from a single point is most valuable."
"The installation process is very simple."
"Centralized management is a valuable feature."
"The solution offers good logging features."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its ease of use."
"The most valuable aspect of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for me is the centralized management of multiple firewalls."
"The price is okay. This said, the solution is certainly expensive in comparison with other cloud services."
"The solution can improve the integration with open-source tools."
"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."
"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."
"In our version, there is no feature to transfer or upload a database of third-party vulnerabilities or signatures so that Panorama can convert them into its own database. This kind of feature might already have come in version 10."
"The pricing is quite high."
"My pain point is the automation process is not well-documented. There are some things that they could improve on there."
"The product could use some method of allowing for more customization and open integration with other controls."
"This would be a better solution if it were more tightly integrated with the firewalls."
"It could be more secure."
"The solution's utilization of network ports makes things as complex as possible."
"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."
Azure Firewall Manager is ranked 13th in Firewall Security Management with 5 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 3rd in Firewall Security Management with 81 reviews. Azure Firewall Manager is rated 7.8, while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Firewall Manager writes "Useful testing, simple configuration, and scales well". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Built-in proxy with the ability to maintain your own policies". Azure Firewall Manager is most compared with Azure Firewall, AWS Firewall Manager, FortiGate Cloud-Native Firewall (FortiGate CNF), Tufin Orchestration Suite and AlgoSec, whereas Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud, Tufin Orchestration Suite and Fortinet FortiPortal. 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.