Azure Firewall Manager vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama comparison

Microsoft and Palo Alto Networks are both solutions in the Firewall Security Management category. Microsoft is ranked #10 with an average rating of 9.3, while Palo Alto Networks is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.6. Microsoft holds a 3.2% mindshare in Firewall Security Management, compared to Palo Alto Networks’s 8.5% mindshare. Additionally, 85% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 97% of Palo Alto Networks users who would recommend it.

Azure Firewall Manager

Read 9 Azure Firewall Manager reviews

1,371 Views
713 Comparison Views

85% willing to recommend

Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Read 93 Palo Alto Networks Panorama reviews

4,926 Views
4,286 Comparison Views

97% willing to recommend

Azure Firewall Manager

Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Azure Firewall Manager are competing in the network security management space. Panorama is often considered superior due to its robust security features and advanced threat prevention capabilities.

Features: Palo Alto Networks Panorama offers advanced threat prevention, centralized security management, and user-friendly interfaces that make it a strong option for large-scale operations. It provides comprehensive dashboards and a single pane of glass management approach. Azure Firewall Manager focuses on straightforward policy management, seamless integration with Azure services, and native support for cloud environments, making it ideal for organizations within the Azure ecosystem.

Room for Improvement: Palo Alto Networks Panorama could enhance automation capabilities and improve its cloud integration features. It may also benefit from a more intuitive initial configuration process. Azure Firewall Manager might expand its range of security features beyond basic functionality and improve support for non-Azure environments. There is also room for improving threat prevention capabilities and management interface enhancements.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Palo Alto Networks Panorama offers flexible deployment options and excellent support, making it suitable for tailored security solutions. Azure Firewall Manager simplifies deployment within Azure environments with built-in support and offers ease of integration, particularly for businesses already using Microsoft services.

Pricing and ROI: Palo Alto Networks Panorama might require a higher initial investment, but it offers long-term ROI with its advanced security measures. Azure Firewall Manager presents a more competitive pricing model for Azure users and integrates cost-effectively into Azure subscriptions, offering potential cost savings for businesses heavily utilizing Azure infrastructure.

To learn more, read our detailed Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama Report (Updated: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 896,803 peers since 2012

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

Azure Firewall Manager

Ranking in Firewall Security Management

10th

Average Rating

8.6

Reviews Sentiment

4.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Microsoft Security Suite (25th)

Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Ranking in Firewall Security Management

4th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Azure Firewall Manager is 3.2%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 8.5%, up from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Firewall Security Management Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Palo Alto Networks Panorama	8.5%
Azure Firewall Manager	3.2%
Other	88.3%

Firewall Security Management

Featured Reviews

Sikkander Batcha

DevOps Engineer at CloudIQ

Has managed traffic effectively but lacks visibility and advanced control features

Azure Firewall is typically behind other vendor firewalls because we don't see what kind of traffic is traveling through it. That is one drawback. The main drawback is that we need log support from Azure Firewall, which can be quite costly. There is no login feature in Azure Firewall because only the IAM feature is available in the Azure site; we manage it only through the Azure portal, not through any other portal. Other vendors, such as Palo Alto, provide GUI or CLI interfaces to manage their firewalls, whereas we only manage Azure Firewall through the Azure portal. In the future, I would like to see additional features in Azure Firewall Manager to make it more competitive, such as technologies like App-ID and User-ID that Palo Alto has. Azure Firewall currently only allows traffic based on layer four and sometimes layer seven, so they need to improve in those areas compared to other vendors.

Read full review

Richard Dombo

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.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"From a traffic management perspective, it's a good firewall because it's automatically scalable based on the traffic availability."

"The best feature of Azure Firewall Manager is that it is easy to maintain and configure."

"The tool's support is good."

"The solution is very easy to set up."

"The most valuable feature of Azure Firewall Manager is the testing and configuration."

"It has helped us in multiple ways; for example, we don't require different spaces to manage it, we can do a lot of automation integrations into the code, we could integrate it into the DevOps pipeline, and it has helped us with our time-to-market for a very specific product when we are actually deploying or upgrading."

"The solution has improved our organization with its firewall."

"I would definitely recommend the solution to my clients, especially if one is using Azure Cloud."

More Azure Firewall Manager pros

"When a customer has many locations and they would like to push policies to all of the firewalls from one central location, Panorama is the product that enables customers to do this."

"In Panorama, installing the policy, and pushing the policy, it's quite seamless."

"This is the most mature next-generation firewall in the market and a solution that I strongly recommend."

"Technical support is pretty good, they have good engineers on their side, they are very helpful and they follow up, and we are very satisfied with their level of support."

"Suppose you have four or five firewalls for different environments related to the same customer; you can buy one license for Panorama and handle the management of all these firewalls simultaneously from one console."

"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its innovation and impressive capacity to handle network traffic efficiently."

"I found logging and management features the most valuable in Palo Alto Networks Panorama. Another good feature of the product is that it lets you define global firewall policies and templates."

"Networks Panorama has improved our organizational security"

More Palo Alto Networks Panorama pros

Cons

"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."

"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."

"Azure charges for many aspects including scaling, automated scaling deployment, and traffic management, which leads to higher costs."

"With Azure Firewall, the problem is that the NAT-ing still has to be improved."

"The cost is a significant concern because we are in a region where the dollar is not our default currency, and converting to dollars makes it very expensive."

"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."

"The price is okay. This said, the solution is certainly expensive in comparison with other cloud services."

"The configuration and settings require substantial time for learning, particularly for new users. Improvements in ease of configuration would benefit users significantly."

More Azure Firewall Manager cons

"It is not a cheap product."

"Reporting might be an area to improve. It can provide reporting or some sort of graphical representation of your environment."

"The presentation is not really as advanced as what an advanced solution would have provided."

"Cost-wise, it's very expensive."

"At times we have noticed that we get into issues where Panorama is going too slow or has other little problems. The performance can suffer occasionally."

"It is an expensive product."

"We have had some issues in the past because integrating a new device is not intuitive."

"The solution could improve by having a true single pane of glass environment for unified management. At the present time, you still have to use three or four different solutions to bring everything together."

More Palo Alto Networks Panorama cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the solution is reasonable but it is reasonable for the features."

"The solution is certainly expensive in comparison with other cloud services."

"Palo Alto products are generally priced higher compared to their competitors."

"The solution is priced well and there is a license for this solution that we pay annually for."

"The pricing is pretty average. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it a five."

"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be lower."

"Palo Alto is expensive and there are many cheaper firewalls, but they do not work as well."

"The pricing model is reasonable for this class of solutions."

"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is expensive."

"The licensing is not cheap. There are always hidden costs. You have support costs, or maybe you need to buy more optics on how the solution fits into the rest of your environment. It is possible some of the rest of your environment will need to change too."

More Palo Alto Networks Panorama pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

896,803 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Construction Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Computer Software Company

11%

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

10%

Comms Service Provider

10%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	2

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	34
Midsize Enterprise	14
Large Enterprise	46

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Firewall Manager?

The pricing for Azure Firewall Manager is expensive. In our project, we have used both Palo Alto Firewall and Azure Firewall. Azure charges for many aspects including scaling, automated scaling dep...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Azure Firewall Manager?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Azure Firewall Manager?

My customers are using Azure Firewall Manager, so I'm learning from both documentation and practical knowledge. I usually recommend Azure Firewall Manager for projects such as an animal hospital pr...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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...

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Comparisons

Azure Firewall vs Azure Firewall Manager

Compared 17% of the time

FortiGate Cloud-Native Firewall (FortiGate CNF) vs Azure Firewall Manager

Compared 15% of the time

AlgoSec vs Azure Firewall Manager

Compared 12% of the time

Microsoft Defender for Cloud vs Azure Firewall Manager

Compared 12% of the time

Fortinet FortiGate Cloud vs Azure Firewall Manager

Compared 8% of the time

More Azure Firewall Manager Competitors

Fortinet FortiManager vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Compared 14% of the time

AlgoSec vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Compared 12% of the time

FireMon Security Manager vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Compared 10% of the time

Tufin Orchestration Suite vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Compared 9% of the time

Cisco Security Cloud Control vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Compared 4% of the time

More Palo Alto Networks Panorama Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Azure Firewall Manager

May 2026

Download Azure Firewall Manager product report

Buyer's Guide

Palo Alto Networks Panorama

May 2026

Download Palo Alto Networks Panorama product report

Overview

Azure Firewall Manager offers easy configuration, centralized management, and automatic scalability. Its integration with Azure Entra ID provides secure access, while Power BI facilitates centralized monitoring, contributing to its cloud-native benefits and reliable network management.

Azure Firewall Manager is recognized for its efficient security policy management and the ability to configure and test firewall settings across multiple locations. Its integration with Azure Kubernetes supports cloud environment security and the seamless migration of on-premise components to the cloud. With its hub-and-spoke architecture, users can detect threats and orchestrate policies more effectively, although integration with open-source tools and technical support responsiveness could be enhanced. Improvements in NAT capabilities and an AI-driven phishing prevention system would enhance its offering.

What are Azure Firewall Manager's key features?

Easy Configuration: Simplifies firewall setup without additional plugins.
Centralized Security Management: Streamlines policy management across locations.
Automatic Scalability: Adjusts resources to meet changing demands seamlessly.
Integration with Azure Entra ID: Provides secure user access control.
Hub and Spoke Architecture: Enables efficient threat detection and policy orchestration.

What benefits and ROI should users evaluate?

Cloud-Native Benefits: Offers stability and seamless integration with cloud environments.
Fair Pricing: Competitive cost structure, despite currency conversion challenges.
Simplified Monitoring: Uses Power BI for comprehensive security insights.
Enhanced Security: Protects against phishing and ransomware threats.

Azure Firewall Manager is widely implemented in industries like finance to secure applications and manage B2B interactions. This tool supports endpoint security, traffic management, and seamless orchestrations within cloud environments, ensuring robust protection against various threats.

Microsoft

Palo Alto Networks Panorama offers centralized management, simplifying configuration and enhancing automation. Its robust security features and user-friendly interface support efficient operations, ideal for managing multiple firewalls across diverse environments.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is designed for enterprises looking to streamline security management across multiple locations. This solution simplifies device management and ensures consistent policy deployment. Equipped with advanced security features and flexible automation capabilities, it supports seamless scaling and real-time updating of firewalls globally. Robust logging and comprehensive reporting tools enhance monitoring and compliance, while application visibility and threat prevention provide thorough protection. Despite its merits, some users suggest improvements in deployment ease, integration, and support to maximize its effectiveness.

What are the key features of Palo Alto Networks Panorama?

Centralized Management: Controls multiple firewalls from a single platform.
Automation Capabilities: Automates configuration and updates for efficiency.
Advanced Security: Integrates threat prevention and application visibility.
Robust Logging and Reporting: Offers detailed logging and reporting tools.
Flexible Policy Deployment: Simplifies policy management across varied locations.
Scalability: Designed to handle enterprise-level networks with ease.

What benefits or ROI should users consider?

Operational Efficiency: Reduces time spent on manual configurations.
Security Enhancement: Strengthens security posture with integrated features.
Flexible Management: Adapts to diverse network environments seamlessly.
Cost Savings: Streamlines processes, potentially lowering operational costs.
Time Saving: Speeds up policy deployment and updates across systems.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama proves particularly effective in industries with extensive network infrastructures, such as telecommunications, finance, and education. Companies deploy it to maintain consistent security policies across campuses and data centers, efficiently managing the complexity of environments that span traditional networks and cloud-based systems.

Palo Alto Networks

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia

Buyer's Guide

Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama

April 2026

Free Report: Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Firewall Manager vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

896,803 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.