Compare Azure Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls

Azure Firewall is ranked 22nd in Firewalls with 6 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 19 reviews. Azure Firewall is rated 7.6, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Azure Firewall writes "Recently added features such as SD-WAN have greatly simplified operations". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "The product stability and level of security are second to none in the industry". Azure Firewall is most compared with Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Cisco Firepower NGFW, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, pfSense and Azure Firewall. See our Azure Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Jonny Su
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
407,845 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
Unfortunately in Cisco, only the hardware was good.For us, the most valuable features are the IPX and the Sourcefire Defense Center module. That gives us visibility into the traffic coming in and going out, and gives us the heads-up if there is a potential outbreak or potential malicious user who is trying to access the site. It also helps us see traffic generated by an end device trying to reach out to the world.The information coming from Talos does a good job... I like the fact that Cisco is working with them and getting the information from them and updating the firewall.The firepower sensors have been great; they do a good job of dropping unwanted traffic.The most important point is the detection engine which is now part of the next-generation firewalls and which is supported by Cisco Talos.The most valuable feature of this solution is AMP (Advanced Malware Protection), as this is really needed to protect against cyber threats.I like the Cisco ASDM (Adaptive Security Device Manager), which is the configuration interface for the Cisco firewall.The technical team is always available when we have problems.

Read more »

We secure the entry point to the virtual data center with the firewall.Great security and connectivity.The solution has many useful features. For example, the solution allows users to create virtual IP addresses.Performance and stability are the key features of this product.The solution is very stable. When comparing it to other environments, it's actually quite impressive.The Layer four features are okay and meet my business needs.

Read more »

This solution not only provides better security than flat VLAN segments but allows easy movement through the lifecycle of the server.This is arguably the best security protection that you can buy.The initial setup was very easy.The most valuable features are the threat prevention and policy-based routing features.We have found the application control to be the most valuable feature. Also, Layer 7, because all other products are working up to the maximum capacity. But Palo Alto is benefiting us, especially in application control management. We are able to differentiate between Oracle traffic and SQL traffic.The solution is scalableI found Palo Alto NG firewalls more intuitive compared to other products. I value the capability to identify a cloud solution.Comments have some delay, but overall, it's a good product.

Read more »

Cons
In NGFW, Cisco should be aligned with the new technology and inspection intelligence because Cisco is far behind in this pipeline.We were also not too thrilled when Cisco announced that in the upcoming new-gen ASA, iOS was not going to be supported, or if you install them, they will not be able to be managed through the Sourcefire. However, it seems like Cisco is moving away from the ASA iOS to the Sourcefire FireSIGHT firmware for the ASA. We haven't had a chance to test it out.Our latest experience with a code upgrade included a number of bugs and issues that we ran into. So more testing with their code, before it hits us, would help.The software was very buggy, to the point it had to be removed.Most users do not have awareness of this product's functionality and features. Cisco should do something to make them aware of them. That would be quite excellent and useful to organizations that are still using legacy data-center-security products.I have found that Cisco reporting capabilities are not as rich as other products, so the reporting could be improved.The Sandbox and the Web Censoring in this solution need to be improved.It will be nice if they had what you traditionally would use a web application scanner for. If the solution could take a deeper look into HTTP and HTTPS traffic, that would be nice.

Read more »

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.The interface could be improved, it's not very user friendly.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 product could be made more customizable.We find it's different implementing it region-to-region. It might help if it was universal across all regions.This solution is not mature when it comes to handling perimeter traffic like internet browsing.

Read more »

I wish that the Palos had better system logging for the hardware itself.The only real drawback to this product is that it is expensive. But you get what you pay for and there is no way to put a price on top-notch security.The advanced manual protection needs to be improved a little bit because they used to make a cloud manual analysis for the cloud.I think they need to have a proper hardware version for a smaller enterprise. We had to go to a very high-end version which is very expensive. If we chose the lower-end version, it would not meet our goals. A middle-end is missing in its portfolio.The solution needs some management tool enhancements. It could also use more reporting tools.The support could be improved.The scalability compared to other products is not good. You need to change the box whenever you want your number of connection sessions to increase.We need better affiliations for profiling the user.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Always consider what you might need to reduce your wasted time and invest it in other solutions.Pricing varies on the model and the features we are using. It could be anywhere from $600 to $1000 to up to $7,000 per year, depending on what model and what feature sets are available to us.We used Check Point and the two are comparable. Cost was really what put us onto the ASAs... the price tag for Check Point was exorbitantly more than what it is for the ASA solution.We are in the process of renewing our three-year license, which costs approximately $24,000 USD for the thirty-six months.The pricing for Cisco products is higher than others, but Cisco is a very good, strong, and stable technology.The program is very expensive.The cost of this solution is high.Some of our customers would be more likely to standardize on Cisco equipment if the cost was lower because a lot of people install cheap equipment.

Read more »

Information Not Available
The product is expensive compared to competing products but uses a similar type of pricing model based on hardware, software and maintenance.The licensing is annual, and there aren't any additional fees on top of that.Don't buy a device with more power than you really need, because licensing depends on the cost of the box you have.It will be worth your time to hire a contractor to set it up and configure it for you, especially if you are not very knowledgeable with PA firewalls.Pricing is yearly, but it depends. You could pay on a yearly basis, or every three years. If you want to add a device or two, there would be an additional cost. Also, if you want to do an assessment, or other similar add-on, you have to pay accordingly for the additional service.Annually, the licensing costs are too much.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
407,845 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 38% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASA, Cisco Sourcefire FirewallsPalo Alto NGFW, Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewall, Palo Alto Networks PA-Series
Learn
Cisco
Microsoft
Palo Alto Networks
Overview

Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) is Cisco's end-to-end software solution and core operating system that powers the Cisco ASA product series. This software solution provides enterprise-level firewall capabilities for all types of ASA products, including blades, standalone appliances and virtual devices. Adaptive Security Appliance provides protection to organizations of all sizes, and allows end-users to access information securely anywhere, at any time, and through any device.

Adaptive Security Appliance is also fully compatible with other key security technologies, and so provides organizations with an all-encompassing security solution.

Block more threats and quickly mitigate those that do breach your defenses with the industry’s first threat-focused NGFW.

Azure Firewall is a managed, cloud-based network security service that protects your Azure Virtual Network resources. It is a fully stateful firewall as a service with built-in high availability and unrestricted cloud scalability.

Palo Alto Networks' next-generation firewalls secure your business with a prevention-focused architecture and integrated innovations that are easy to deploy and use. Now, you can accelerate growth and eliminate risks at the same time.

Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about Azure Firewall
Learn more about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls
Sample Customers
There are more than one million Adaptive Security Appliances deployed globally. Top customers include First American Financial Corp., Genzyme, Frankfurt Airport, Hansgrohe SE, Rio Olympics, The French Laundry, Rackspace, and City of Tomorrow.
Information Not Available
SkiStar AB, Ada County, Global IT Services PSF, Southern Cross Hospitals, Verge Health, University of Portsmouth, Austrian Airlines, The Heinz Endowments
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm19%
Manufacturing Company10%
Comms Service Provider9%
University6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company28%
Comms Service Provider19%
Media Company7%
Government5%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company41%
Comms Service Provider13%
Government8%
Real Estate/Law Firm7%
REVIEWERS
Wholesaler/Distributor29%
Financial Services Firm29%
Comms Service Provider14%
Transportation Company14%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Comms Service Provider13%
Construction Company7%
Financial Services Firm6%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business35%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise40%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business38%
Midsize Enterprise19%
Large Enterprise43%
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Small Business48%
Midsize Enterprise31%
Large Enterprise21%
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
407,845 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.