No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

AWS Firewall Manager vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

AWS Firewall Manager
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Palo Alto Networks Panorama
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
93
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of AWS Firewall Manager is 3.9%, up from 3.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 8.9%, up from 7.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewall Security Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Palo Alto Networks Panorama8.9%
AWS Firewall Manager3.9%
Other87.2%
Firewall Security Management
 

Featured Reviews

Venda E - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Option Engineer at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Centralized security policies have streamlined audits and ensure consistent protection by default
One area for improvement is the reporting and customization option. The compliance reports are helpful, but having more granular insights or export options would make it even easier to use during audits. Also, support for more third-party integration could improve flexibility. Another improvement I need to see is a smoother setup experience. Some of the initial configuration steps, especially around the organization and permissions, can feel complex. A more guided setup or clear UI explanation would make it easier for teams to adopt quickly. One more improvement would be better alerting options. Right now, we mostly rely on AWS Security Hub or CloudWatch for detailed alerts. Having more built-in, real-time notification directly from AWS Firewall Manager would make it easier to monitor policy violations without extra setup.
Richard Dombo - PeerSpot reviewer
Application Support Administrator at Meridian Port Services
Monitoring and managing multiple firewalls has become more efficient through centralized oversight and reliable logging
I would say that while Palo Alto Networks Panorama reporting capability is functional, it is not really intuitive. The presentation is not really as advanced as what an advanced solution would have provided. I would like to improve the dashboards on Palo Alto Networks Panorama, especially because I work in an environment where my managers are not really that technical. They do a great job leading us, but they do not have a technical background. If the dashboard could be improved to suit more executive use cases when it comes to reporting, that would be excellent. It is basic as far as I am concerned, and from an executive standpoint, it is not really that good. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama as a product nine or 9.5 out of ten because there is always room for improvement, especially on the dashboard. I think if they could improve the dashboard, I would give them ten out of ten because from a technical standpoint, the dashboard is good, but at an executive level, it is not really that good. I usually struggle when doing presentations to my bosses because the dashboard and reporting from Palo Alto Networks Panorama are not as polished as they could be.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The product is highly reliable."
"After implementing AWS Firewall Manager, we reduced our manual security configuration effort by around sixty to seventy percent as the policies are now centralized, managed, and automatically enforced."
"The most valuable feature is the centrally managed rule. I also like the central orchestration."
"It has centralized cloud firewall management rules. It provides compliance in tracking and reporting."
"Also, the strength of the community is invaluable."
"The most valuable feature is scaling, which allows you to deploy one configuration and scan and deploy it across the network. The automated policy application feature also streamlines security operations."
"AWS Firewall Manager isn't a separate solution when you create the virtual private cloud (VPC), so you can control the traffic through that security group."
"It is helpful for our compliance, as the compliance manager manages compliance with leading industry standards such as FedRAMP, which my company complies with, GDPR laws, and ISO 27001."
"It has been very useful for our organization and we have been quite happy with its capabilities."
"Centralized firewall management and update management are the most valuable features."
"Our team has the option to make configuration changes at any given time."
"Support from Palo Alto is very good."
"It is really useful for big deployments."
"What I like most about this solution is that it allows me to push multiple policies on multiple followers at the same time."
"Everything about the reporting and everything about Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good."
"I like its flexibility."
 

Cons

"I would like to see AWS add some UTM features to the firewall. It would also be great if AWS Firewall had native IPS/IDS. They have the separate IPS/IDS, GuardDuty."
"One area for improvement is the reporting and customization option."
"For AWS WAF, we have seen cases where it allowed suspicious HTTPS headers even if they carried malicious payloads."
"They could consider organizing and enhancing documentation in a more structured and chronological manner"
"This solution is suitable for a small-scale enterprise and may not scale up to a very high volume of traffic or a large number of servers."
"AWS Firewall Manager could be improved with more granular policy customization for better visibility through enhanced dashboards and reporting."
"Enabling and configuring the logging is not that straightforward."
"The areas of improvement are definitely platform resiliency, as we have seen outages on the AWS backbone, and whenever there is an outage on the AWS backbone, it impacts all the services hosted on that region, so we expect regional resiliency."
"Its scalability can be improved. It is too expensive to scale it in the way Palo Alto wants us to scale. Scalability is one of the main reasons why our customer is looking for alternatives. It is too expensive to scale. Its redundancy also requires improvement, but it seems that in the latest version, redundancy is improved, and you can have more than two devices in an HA pair. So, they are heading in that direction. It would be good if they combine their dynamic list functionality in a much better way with Panorama and include it as out-of-the-box functionality. Palo Alto supports the dynamic list functionality for some basic threats, but there is a lot of scope for improvement."
"My company's getting whatever it needs from Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but in the cloud, there's an issue with CPU management, and that's an area for improvement. Though the normal data traffic doesn't go through the management interface, whenever there's an increase in the throughput, CPU management becomes high. If you increase the load, CPU management spikes, and it's what needs to be taken care of in Palo Alto Networks Panorama."
"When extracting reports to a CSV file, the lack of correlation to the actual report generated is an issue. You get a CSV file with a vague name, which is inconvenient when sorting through multiple reports."
"The solution is extremely expensive. You can integrate it with other Palo Alto products, however, it ends up being too much."
"There is room for improvement in the integration within endpoint detection. They need to do some integration between endpoints and the firewalls."
"The notification and alerting system could be improved."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a more expensive solution than competitors. They should lower the price to stay competitive."
"It should have more connection with Threat Intelligence Cloud. They can also include features related to SecOps and automation API."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"From what I've heard from my colleagues, it appears that the pricing is competitive, which influenced our decision to choose this option."
"The licensing is on a pay-as-you-go basis and we are billed monthly."
"It is a cost-efficient product."
"Cost-wise, it's very expensive."
"Initially, Palo Alto looks expensive, but if you dig deeper then you will find that it is very comparable, or even cheaper than other solutions."
"The pricing is considered a little bit expensive, but depending on the client, it's worth it."
"Palo Alto is costly compared to Fortinet and Sophos."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama has so many licenses. For example, it has threat protection and group protection licenses. One license depends on another. I find it more expensive than Cisco."
"The pricing is pretty average. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it a five."
"Sometimes the company prefers to give a license to test the product in our environment before we go to the customer. But the customer should buy his own license, and that's the system here. The system is different between one country and another. Some countries say that the IT solutions provider should provide the license."
"There is a license required to use this solution and it is paid annually."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Comms Service Provider
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
University
6%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Construction Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise7
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business34
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AWS Firewall Manager?
The pricing is reasonable and follows a pay-as-you-go model, which makes it cost-effective for scaling the environment. There is no significant setup cost since the native AWS services and licensin...
What needs improvement with AWS Firewall Manager?
AWS Firewall Manager could be improved with more granular policy customization for better visibility through enhanced dashboards and reporting. Simplifying the initial setup and providing clearer d...
What is your primary use case for AWS Firewall Manager?
My primary use case for AWS Firewall Manager is to centrally manage and enforce security policies across the multiple AWS accounts and resources within our organization. It helps to streamline the ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
We did not purchase Palo Alto Networks Panorama through the Azure Marketplace. We purchased it directly through Palo Alto.
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
From a monitoring perspective, if we could improve on data retention and keep it for quite a long time, such as 90 days of data retention, that would be good for us to manage our CPU usage, as we c...
What is your primary use case for Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
My main use case for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is to manage our firewalls. We have around 450 firewalls, and we manage them through Panorama. Configuration entry is the primary focus of our use.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Expedia, Intuit, Royal Dutch Shell, Brooks Brothers
University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,834 professionals have used our research since 2012.