We performed a comparison between Azure Firewall and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Microsoft Security Suite solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution can autoscale."
"We use the solution for application and server deployment."
"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 threat intelligence. It is based on filtering and can identify multiple threats."
"Network filtering is valuable. The scalability capability from the cloud-native service helps us a lot because it simplifies our day-to-day maintenance activity."
"Performance and stability are the key features of this product."
"The most valuable feature is the integration into the overall cloud platform."
"The firewall policy control, URL content control, and antivirus are all the most valuable aspects. Threat prevention is as well quite good."
"User-friendly, offering safety and security."
"I like the real-time protection features. Windows Defender will detect if there's a threat like a Trojan or something like that but Kaspersky lets it run normally."
"I like that Defender is integrated and doesn't have a third-party payload trying to advertise subscription renewal."
"Because it has been integrated with the OS, we get the entire software inventories, and we even get access to the registries. Those are the primary features."
"The investigation aspect is the most useful. It's user friendly and has a good user interface."
"The fact that it's from Microsoft, you don't have many false positives, unlike products from other vendors might have."
"The solution is highly scalable."
"It's effective against most types of infection, and the firewall is perfect for protection."
"This solution is not mature when it comes to handling perimeter traffic like internet browsing."
"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."
"Azure should be able to work better as a balancer also, instead of just being a firewall. It should have a wider mandate."
"The solution should incorporate features similar to competitors like split tunneling."
"The solution lacks artificial intelligence and machine learning. It might be in the roadmap. However, currently, it's not available."
"The reporting, logging, and monitoring features, as well as the flexibility of the policies, need to be improved."
"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."
"It needs a lot of improvement, especially on intruder detection. They are working hard on that."
"Updates are not coming out of preview quickly enough and it is holding back on the development of the product."
"The UI for Microsoft Defender for Endpoint needs to be better. Integration with client dashboards is also lacking in this product, e.g. client dashboards shouldn't just be viewable from the cloud, because when the client's computer is offline, you won't be able to see the client dashboard."
"Defender is free for one year. Once that year is over, we will switch to Kaspersky."
"The scalability could be improved - I would rate it between a seven and an eight."
"Reporting could be improved. I would like to see how many security incidents occurred in the last six months, how many devices were highly exposed to security risks, and how many devices were actually compromised."
"In terms of improvement, they update the platform it seems quite a bit. Every month something is in a new spot or something changed somewhere. There should be less of that."
"The solution could be more friendly for end-users, with different type of scans or scheduled scans for it."
"Right now, there's a portal for Azure, portals for Microsoft Office, and portals for endpoints. It would be good to have only one portal and integrate everything."
More Microsoft Defender for Endpoint Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Firewall is ranked 14th in Microsoft Security Suite with 33 reviews while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is ranked 5th in Microsoft Security Suite with 182 reviews. Azure Firewall is rated 7.2, while Microsoft Defender for Endpoint 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 Microsoft Defender for Endpoint writes "Eliminates the need to look at multiple dashboards by automatically providing one XDR dashboard to show the security score of each subscription". Azure Firewall is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and Fortinet FortiGate, whereas Microsoft Defender for Endpoint is most compared with Symantec Endpoint Security, Intercept X Endpoint, SentinelOne Singularity Complete, CrowdStrike Falcon and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Azure Firewall vs. Microsoft Defender for Endpoint report.
See our list of best Microsoft Security Suite vendors.
We monitor all Microsoft Security Suite 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.
