We performed a comparison between Azure Firewall and KerioControl 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."The features that prevent internet connections, the filtering are the most valuable because we did not have any internet protection before."
"Overall, the pricing of the solution is very good. The product offers good value."
"The secure web gateway module and the application control module are valuable. HA operations are very easy."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"The most valuable features are the possibility of having one fabric for switching on security."
"The SD-WAN is the most valuable feature."
"The security features that they have are quite good. On top of that, their licensing model is quite nice where they don't charge you anything for the SD-WAN functionality for the firewall."
"Good performance, stability, and virtual domain ability."
"Azure Firewall's feature that I have found most valuable is its scalability."
"It's auto-scalable, which is a great feature."
"The solution should be capable of self-scaling, which is one of the features we like about it."
"Among the most valuable features are the DDoS protection that protects your virtual machines, the threat intelligence, and traffic filtering."
"I can easily configure it."
"Performance and stability are the key features of this product."
"The initial setup is straightforward; Azure Firewall does not have a complex implementation process. It is very simple; you just need to enable the service within Azure. It does not require any maintenance because it is managed by Microsoft, that is, it is a fully managed service."
"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."
"It is very comprehensive and simple. It has all the active protections. It's updated. We love that you can set how often it is updated so you can work what is right for you. A large company with a lot of bandwidth can update the virus definitions and security definitions hourly, if they want. A smaller site that's remote, where maybe updating the definitions will eat into the bandwidth, we can schedule those more to go later at night. It's very flexible and works for us in all types of situations. This is great because then we don't have to learn seven different products to be able to work with seven different scenarios."
"Setup is simple. The Kerio interface is very intuitive."
"The comprehensiveness of the security features that Kerio Control provides us with is good. Before GFI had it, they would have more updates. The updates have been slower, but I like the things that they keep adding like the ability to block by country. I use pretty much every feature."
"It helps us better control internal and external communications."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the reliability of VPN capabilities. The VPN has been very reliable and secure. The security has been very good and the VPN connections are reliable in that they stay up. We don't have a lot of problems with downtime and that type of thing."
"Compared to other solutions, accounting and live monitoring of firewall status are very good features in KerioControl."
"What I like the most about Kerio is that I can use the software appliance as a solution, so if the hardware fails for any reason then I can quickly replace it with hardware that I have in stock."
"If I had any criticism that I would give FortiGate, it would be that they need to stop changing their logging format. Every time we do a firmware upgrade, it is a massive issue on the SIM. Parsers have to be rebuilt. Even the FortiGate guys came in and said that they don't play well in the sandbox."
"There are some cloud-based features that could be much more flexible than they currently are."
"You do need some IT knowledge in order to effectively work with the solution."
"They should improve high CPU and memory usage that occurs."
"It would be nice if FortiGate incorporated some built-in endpoint protection features. I would also like a built-in SOC dashboard for managing multiple Fortinet firewalls."
"It's my understanding that more of the current generation features could be brought in. There could be more integration with EDRs, for example."
"I think the only issue that needs improvement is the interface."
"The security of Fortinet FortiGate could improve."
"It has fewer features than you can get from other firewalls, like anti-spam and anti-phishing. Those kinds of things are not included. It only includes IDS and IDB."
"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 solution doesn't offer the same capabilities of Fortinet. It should offer intrusion prevention and advance filtering. These are two very useful features offered on Fortinet that Azure lacks."
"The interface could be improved, it's not very user friendly."
"There should be better monitoring and logging. Currently, it is put in Sentinel. It should be more seamless and from the interface."
"Right now, with Azure Firewall, we cannot have a normal inbound traffic flow. For inbound, Microsoft suggests using application gateways, so the options are very limited. I cannot use this firewall as an intermediate firewall because of the limitations, and I cannot point routing to another firewall. So if I want to use back-to-back firewall architecture in my environment, I cannot use Azure Firewall for that type of configuration either."
"The threat intelligence aspect of this particular firewall is not at par with other providers."
"The development area and QA area could be improved. With those improvements, we can improve projects and take even less time to implement them."
"I can no longer renew my subscription directly with GFI but we have to go through third-party resellers like CDW. The first time I did it with CDW. I went to CDW and it was almost like they didn't even know anything. They didn't know what package I was supposed to get. Then after I got it, it took almost five days to get everything working."
"The product's technical support is not good as it used to be."
"I would like for them to add more security features."
"Support responses need improvement."
"There isn't a lot to be improved. It works well as it is, but they can maybe improve the reporting side."
"I would like to be able to inspect https packets for the purpose of virus scanning."
"The upgrades make the network slower."
"The improvement that we are looking for is for when decide to move some part of our application to the cloud."
Azure Firewall is ranked 21st in Firewalls with 33 reviews while KerioControl is ranked 29th in Firewalls with 54 reviews. Azure Firewall is rated 7.2, while KerioControl is rated 8.0. 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 KerioControl writes "With VPN, any of our guys can log in to the system and effectively be on board; helps with our customers all over the world". Azure Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and Check Point NGFW, whereas KerioControl is most compared with Netgate pfSense, OPNsense, Sophos UTM, Sophos XG and Meraki MX. See our Azure Firewall vs. KerioControl 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.
