Azure Firewall Reviews

I use Azure Firewall as an edge and data center firewall. It is primarily used for data center and edge firewall purposes.

The features of Azure Firewall that I find most valuable include DNS inspection, forward proxy, and security, particularly on the edge.

I would like the premium and standard features to be available on the basic package. Additionally, it lacks some functionalities when compared to competitors like Check Point and Fortinet, such as WAF or load balancing.

I have been working with Azure Firewall for five years.

I would rate the stability of Azure Firewall around a six out of ten, which indicates that there is some room for improvement.

I would rate the scalability of Azure Firewall also around a six out of ten.

I would rate Microsoft's technical support for Azure around a five.

Neutral

Initially, the setup for Azure Firewall was simple, but it was costly.

I would rate the pricing of Azure Firewall around a seven, with one being high and ten being low.

Solutions like Fortinet and Check Point were mentioned as competitors.

I would rate the overall solution around six out of ten. Functionality-wise, I prefer Fortinet, as Azure Firewall lacks some functionalities from other vendors.

Currently, in the team I am working on, we are not using AWS. I used to work with it, but now I am focusing on Microsoft Azure. We have two teams in our company, one focusing on infrastructure on Azure and the other on AWS. Previously, one of my assignments required looking into security tools for AWS to get an idea of what can be used.

I like that you can deploy the policies separately from the firewall. The management capabilities in this aspect are helpful for me. We do not use the version with security features like IDS and IPS as it proved expensive, and we did not get approval for the full-featured firewall.

One thing that would help engineers adopt it better is the documentation. It is lacking and scattered across various locations. You have multiple pages open, which can be confusing. I mostly relied on third-party YouTube videos for understanding. Improvement in reporting and better visibility into network traffic would also be beneficial.

I have been using the solution for six months.

I find the solution to be very stable, and would rate it a ten out of ten in terms of stability.

I have had no problems with scalability, as we have not yet hit any limits related to high traffic volumes. Based on my experience, I would rate it nine out of ten for scalability.

There has been no need to contact technical support, so I cannot comment on customer service.

Positive

We used Cisco, specifically Cisco FTD Defense, before switching to Azure. We moved to the cloud primarily, and in the cloud, we preferred to use Microsoft technologies because they integrate well with each other. Although there is the possibility to use Cisco VM in the cloud, we preferred the service solution from Microsoft. Additionally, I was not very satisfied with Cisco FTD.

The initial setup was smooth, with no severe challenges. The deployment itself took a few hours. Configuration, however, took longer due to the involvement of several teams and other factors.

There were three engineers, including myself, involved in the installation and configuration process.

Azure Firewall is an expensive solution. On a scale from one to ten, where one is not affordable, I would rate the price as a three. If you want to use additional security features like IDS functionality, you have to pay extra, which increases the cost significantly.

I would recommend Azure Firewall based on the specific needs and cloud architecture of the organization. We plan to use it in another project soon. 

Overall, I would give it an eight out of ten.

We use it to improve our security posture. We wanted to have an Azure-native solution for our security offerings, and that's why we went for Azure Firewall.

There are constant feature additions. They add features every three to six months. They add a lot of new features to it, and its cost is comparatively cheaper than the traditional ones.

There are constant feature additions. They add features every three to six months. They add a lot of new features to it, and its cost is comparatively cheaper than the traditional ones.

The threat intelligence aspect of this particular firewall is not at par with other providers. The load balancing and high availability could be better.

Something like Panorama can also be a part of this solution. 

Azure Firewall has a lot of features that are comparable to Palo Alto and other firewalls. One of them is security incidents and event management. The SIEM that Azure Firewall provides us is very robust.

There are constant feature additions. They add features every three to six months. They add a lot of new features to it, and its cost is comparatively cheaper than the traditional ones.

Azure Firewall has a lot of features that are comparable to Palo Alto and other firewalls. One of them is security incidents and event management. The SIEM that Azure Firewall provides us is very robust.

There are constant feature additions. They add features every three to six months. They add a lot of new features to it, and its cost is comparatively cheaper than the traditional ones.

We used Cisco before that. We switched because we moved from on-prem to the cloud, so we wanted to have a native cloud solution.

The threat intelligence aspect of this particular firewall is not at par with other providers. The load balancing and high availability could be better.

Something like Panorama can also be a part of this solution.

There are constant feature additions. They add features every three to six months. They add a lot of new features to it, and its cost is comparatively cheaper than the traditional ones.

We used Cisco before that. We switched because we moved from on-prem to the cloud, so we wanted to have a native cloud solution.

I've been using this solution for about five years.

It's stable. There are no issues with that.

It's very much scalable. It's deployed across multiple locations globally, and the total number of users is about 5,000.

Their technical support is quite responsive if you have an enterprise agreement, which we have, so whenever we raise any technical questions, they get back to us within a few hours.

Overall, I'd rate them a seven out of ten. The response time is good, but the solution is not provided in the first instance. They always have to check with others and get back, so the solution is not instant.

Neutral

We used Cisco before that. We switched because we moved from on-prem to the cloud, so we wanted to have a native cloud solution.

It was very easy.

We did it ourselves. Just one person was required for its deployment.

As compared to others, you just need one person to deploy and operate it, and that too not full-time. It's very easy to manage.

Before choosing this solution, we evaluated others, and we found this to be the most cost-effective.

I evaluated both Cisco and Palo Alto. We went for Azure Firewall because the cost is comparatively cheaper, and it's easy to manage as compared to other solutions. Azure Firewall Monitor gives you a lot of monitoring controls that are quite easy to manage. When it comes to cons, threat intelligence is still lacking in Azure Firewall. The load balancing and high availability could also be improved.

Along with Azure Firewall, if you also choose Microsoft XDR, that will be an ideal solution rather than just a standalone firewall.

Overall, I'd rate it a seven out of ten. It's not there yet, but they have been making a lot of improvements every three to six months.

I have hands-on experience with Azure Firewall. My company is developing a product called Mondo with Azure Firewall. The tools that we are developing use all sorts of products inside Azure or AWS. For example, we are checking for vulnerabilities inside the cloud and whether the customer configures the firewall properly or not. Indirectly, we are using the Azure Firewalls, but mainly it is for scanning and to check the misconfigurations of the cloud.

The solution's most valuable feature is its ranking of some web categories. The tool also does URL filtering and uses SSL and TLS inspection.

Maybe one of the things in the tool where improvements are needed as there are some shortcomings consists of Azure Firewall Manager. Azure Firewall Manager is one of the best things that can be made more capable of managing all sorts of different areas within Azure. The other thing is the traffic inspection part where improvements are needed, specifically by working on improving the engine and database.

I have been using Azure Firewall for a year.

I have had minimal use of the tool and the solution's technical support. Microsoft offers a tool named Copilot. You can ask your questions associated with Azure Firewall to Copilot by phone. If you have any problems with the tool, you can just chat with AI, which is included inside Azure, and it answers almost everything. We don't need to call the support team anymore.

My company works with Qualys indirectly since Azure has integrated it into its cloud platform. You can do vulnerability scanning with the integrated scanner part from Qualys, but I think it is currently deprecated, and Azure took it out. More than a year ago, I used the scanner part from Qualys directly, which was very strong at that time. I work with tools like AWS, Google, Kubernetes, and everything related to the cloud.

Fortinet was a tool I was working with in the past and it is mostly for the firewall. I know that Fortinet recently bought a company and are moving to the cloud area.

It is very easy to deploy the product. It does not take more than 30 minutes to deploy the solution. The implementation was easy. The setup process requires one to have a deep knowledge of the product, but the phase is overall easy to manage.

If in the setup process, one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the setup phase a seven or eight out of ten.

The product's value to my company stems from its ability to secure my organization.

In Azure, I use everything in its ecosystem, ranging from Azure Key Vault to Azure Storage.

The threat intelligence system is mainly a tool for analyzing traffic inside or outside of a mainstream company. Based on the pattern that the tool gets, which is mostly signature-based, the solution detects the attacks. The tool works mainly with signature-based detection areas. Recently, with the AI tools integrated with Azure, the tool has also analyzed areas based on the massive amount of data that is being passed through the network. The tool can analyze and provide an alarm for the attack, making it like the IDS or IPS system.

We cannot compare point to point as to what challenges the tool helps its users overcome because many customers use Azure since they don't have any other solution other than Azure Firewall. I can use other platforms, like Fortinet Cloud, but integrating Fortinet to Azure is a massive job and involves a lot of work, and I don't think it is worth doing it. If somebody wants to move to the cloud, like Azure, they are most probably using all the features inside Azure, like Azure Firewall, Azure Storage, and everything that is included in Azure. They don't use any other products outside of Azure's ecosystem since it won't make any sense. It is also the same for AWS. If you are using AWS, probably the best thing is to use AWS Firewall.

The scalability of Azure Firewall in handling our growing network traffic is very effective. The tool does a perfect job of handling growing network traffic. We get full control of your network. You can change all sorts of IPs and ports and control almost all of the traffic.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We use Azure Firewall for designing infrastructure for big data integration applications or for applications on Kubernetes. The firewall is only on the edge of our architecture.

The problem we were trying to solve was mostly around configuration. Azure Firewall is a PaaS offering, so it's not about the technical aspects. We need, of course, to know what threats need to be protected against, who should have access to the firewall, and which applications do have access. We also have to look at how it fits with centralized management. We also must be able to state if the solution we provide as a firewall is compliant with the standards of the organization and for auditing.

We use it in a mission-critical environment. It's highly secured.

It has made our solution safer, more scalable, and less costly because we don't have to take care of the technical maintenance.

One of the best features is that it natively integrates with Azure Services and tools. When you have a third-party offering, that is not the case. But Azure Firewall provides a comprehensive and seamless security solution for your Azure resources. The flawless integration is really nice with the Azure AD, Azure Monitor, and Azure Bastion. Everything fits together. If you use Sentinel, it's also good for that.

You can use Azure Firewall in every technical area. It's not branch specific, rather it's more architecture specific. Palo Alto also has firewalls that protect cloud infrastructure, but Palo Alto firewalls are fully managed by Palo Alto, giving you room to configure it more like you want to configure it. That gives you more options for manual deployment. Sometimes this works great when it comes to scaling or performance and can be an advantage. It depends on the use case. The option for doing a more manual deployment with Azure Firewall should be improved.

It doesn't always fit our requirements and we have to configure it further.

Also, Azure has new versions including a premium firewall. But I would like to see them not put the premium features on Azure Firewall Premium alone because it is quite expensive. For example, we use intrusion detection and prevention systems but only mTLS (Mutual TLS) inspection, which is not in the standard Azure Firewall, but it is in the premium version.

High availability can also be an issue, so there are several reasons to go for the premium version, but the standard firewall is too modest. It's more for an SMB. If you want to scale you should go for Azure Firewall Premium.

I have been using Azure Firewall for about eight years.

It's a very stable solution.

It's very scalable because it's a PaaS solution. If you have only one event or a lot of events, it scales.

When we have a really in-depth question when we are working in production or other environments, we use Microsoft standard support. Sometimes it's very good, and sometimes it could be better.

There is also go-live support.

Positive

We used Palo Alto. We switched because we needed to do the configuration manually. Another issue was the pricing. Azure Firewall pricing is based on a pay-as-you-go model, while the Palo Alto pricing includes the cost of the VM-Series license. It's a different usage model. 

The best choice depends on your specific needs and the level of security features you require. If you need more security features, then Palo Alto would be the better one, but if you want simple management and a cost-effective solution, Azure Firewall is enough.

I also used Fortinet FortiGate. It is very popular for the same reasons that Palo Alto is. I have also used Check Point CloudGuard and some of my colleagues use Barracuda and Cisco. Nowadays it's mostly between Azure, Palo Alto, and Fortinet.

It's a PaaS offering, always on the cloud. It's tightly connected to Azure. It's quite simple when it comes to creating it, but the configuration, the fine-grain specific needs, is more difficult. If you have a standard way of working, it would work very well. But when you have different applications and integrations, Fortinet might be a better choice.

Our implementation strategy is based on designing the architecture for the application. Then we look at cost estimation so that it fits into the budget. Then we implement it and maintain it and evaluate it yearly.

There is functional maintenance involved but not technical maintenance because that is done by Azure. Things like upgrading the OS are handled by the Capgemini and Accenture technicians.

We made use of Accenture and Capgemini. The Accenture team had about eight people and Capgemini brought about four. My team was four architects.

It's worth the money, it's not expensive, but it depends on the requirements of the organization. When you are in a smaller organization with smaller applications, Azure Firewall will do the job. But when you are in a big organization with different needs, you should go for Fortinet or Palo Alto.

The pricing of Azure Firewall is pay-as-you-go. Fortinet also has a pay-as-you-go model, but Azure's pricing is higher and, with FortiGate, you also have the license.

It's not that the price is always better with Azure, but if you want a simple solution, one you don't have to think about too much, go for Azure Firewall. 

There are different pricing models and it also depends on how much data transfer you have. If you have a lot of data transfer, I would go for other firewalls. Azure Firewall is not the best firewall, but it's the easiest firewall.

My advice is to start by trying the Azure Firewall, and if it's not working out, then go for Azure Firewall Premium or for Palo Alto or Fortinet.

One use case for the product is providing a secure channel for data storage solutions. For example, I have used it to establish channel-based security, restricting IP or MAC address access to ensure data security.

The primary benefit of the platform is enhanced security. It offers continuous updates and protection against threats, which would otherwise require manual patching and maintenance if managed on-premises.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its VPN capability, which allows for secure communication.

The product pricing could be more competitive.

I have been using Azure Firewall for approximately two to three years.

I would rate the product stability as a seven or eight. It depends on how well it is configured and implemented within the organization's environment.

About 150 users have access to Azure Firewall in our organization. It is a scalable product. 

The setup was straightforward.

The return on investment is positive. The cost of cloud-based solutions can be significantly lower, offering a 50% reduction in costs.

I rate the product pricing a five out of ten. 

Azure Firewall integrates well with multiple platforms. For instance, I have successfully integrated it with AWS Firewall to facilitate secure data migration between Azure and AWS environments.

I recommend implementing it to secure your data. Despite the misconception that cloud environments are inherently secure, it is crucial to configure and manage your firewall properly. 

I rate it a ten out of ten. 

I've been using Azure Firewall for one or two customers in the UAE to protect against security threats. It protects the Azure infrastructure and PaaS, applications, network, and ports. It's the same as the things we configure with other firewalls.

With Azure firewall, I can extend the security posture from 67 percent to between 75 and 80 percent.

The security of Azure Firewall is okay for smaller and medium-sized organizations. It has been integrated with the virtual WAN, which is a good way to protect multi branches for connection either through ExpressRoute or VPN.

The dashboard is fine because it's simple and easy to use. For junior admins who are joining an organization and want to learn something, Azure Firewall is the best way to go, as it gives them all the flexibility. It's not so customized. Whereas with Palo Alto, for example, you have to understand firewalls, and the security aspects, in a more in-depth way. Azure Firewall is easy.

It is easy for me to protect specific ports or even the IP addresses, as well as do whitelisting, blacklisting, and the FQDN when we want virtual machines connected and to protect certain websites. There are many features which are good enough.

Also, the documentation is awesome, no doubt about it. 

For large organizations, a third-party firewall would be an added advantage, because it would have more advanced features, things that are not in Azure Firewall.

I have been using Azure Firewall for almost three years.

It's absolutely stable because it's Azure. It has the redundancy and the resilience of the Azure Infrastructure Services. I don't think there is downtime with this kind of service. It probably has 99.95 percent uptime.

It should be scalable. That has to do with the backend and Azure takes care of all of that. We have 300 to 400 users.

We have an Enterprise Agreement and that means Microsoft support would answer any calls within half an hour's time, max. They get in touch with us if there is anything that is crucial. It is based on the severity when we create the request.

A Microsoft Enterprise Agreement is the best. I worked on many problems and issues when I was working for a government organization that had an Enterprise Agreement, and I used to get calls immediately. The issues would be resolved within half a day or, at the maximum, one day.

Positive

I haven't worked with other firewalls.

The initial setup is straightforward. There is nothing complex about it. Within 20 minutes, you have the firewall up and running.

Two or three people are sufficient for deployment and maintenance in a small organization. One should be at least a SOC analyst who understands security, and one could be an Azure admin with good knowledge of the Azure infrastructure, PaaS, and security aspects.

Azure Firewall comes with Azure native services. We did not buy any kind of license for it. Whether you have a free subscription or a pay-as-you-go model, you can deploy the Azure Firewall service. For any type of third-party service, like Palo Alto, or Fortinet, or Check Point, we would need to buy a subscription or licenses based on the users, but here it comes with the tenant when you purchase it. You are not going to spend extra money on it. The amount that you use will determine how much you pay.

The pricing of Azure, compared to third-party vendors, is good because it's Azure-native. It's affordable.

It's a common firewall. I haven't faced any issues or problems with it. In Azure services itself, there are other security implementations provided, to do with DDoS protection on the networks. There are certain firewall rules as well and things that we can deploy at the subnet level and on the NIC level. Along with Azure Firewall, other security services have been implemented. It's okay for small and medium-sized organizations that cannot afford to buy a third-party vendor or security appliances to protect their perimeter. Azure Firewall should suffice for them.

Also, as cloud administrators or architects, we are the ones who take care of the protection. As long the end-user is connected with the application, they're fine. To them, it doesn't matter whether we're using Azure Firewall or a third-party appliance. They don't know what is going on at the infrastructure level. They just want the application and the performance to be good.

For small and medium-sized organizations that are not ready to invest in a third-party firewall, and clients who are not so concerned about data security, Azure Firewall is the best solution. If a company needs more protection of, say, their email service, they could go with Proofpoint, an IaaS, or PaaS. For one of our large organizations, where they have financial services and a retail business, they went for a third-party solution along with Azure Firewall.

Overall, I would rate Azure firewall at eight out of 10. There are many advanced features in the other firewalls that are not available in Azure.

We used Azure Firewall to secure our cloud layer and integrate our on-prem servers. We also used it to build the QDM level for integration. Azure Firewall offers multiple SKUs, including Standard and Premium. I have experience with the Standard SKU, but not the Premium one.

Overall, I had a good experience with Azure Firewall, but there are some downsides. 

FQDN integration, especially the ability to integrate with Azure Active Directory domain services.

Azure Firewall can integrate with Azure services to access application data. I've also integrated it with Azure Monitor.  

From an integration perspective, it's very helpful. We can monitor both network and cloud traffic, which is a definite plus.

There are some downsides. One is the lack of built-in VPN capability. You need a separate Azure VPN Gateway for that functionality. Many customers compare Azure Firewall to their existing on-premises firewalls, which often have VPN capabilities. 

Additionally, Azure Firewall has some limitations in terms of threat signature coverage. There is a separate service for threat signature tuning, but it's worth noting this potential downside.

I would appreciate it if Azure Firewall included built-in VPN capabilities. It would be beneficial if Azure Firewall could replicate features that are available in other firewalls.

I used it for one and a half years.  

I do have some experience with other Azure services, though I wouldn't consider myself an expert.

I haven't experienced any stability issues or downtimes.

I work with both SMBs and enterprises.

I haven't needed to contact Microsoft so far.

I work with clients from multiple sectors, including private and government. We gather their requirements and provide solutions tailored to their needs.

Sometimes, we have to choose between Azure Firewall and third-party firewall options on Azure.

I haven't worked with other cloud firewalls extensively, but Azure Firewall compares favorably in terms of features. People can compare it to platforms like AWS or GCP to see the feature differences.

It's straightforward. If you have experience with Azure, it's not complex at all.

The deployment time depends on the requirements. We can deploy the firewall itself in about half an hour to 20 minutes. The configuration time will vary based on the customer's specific needs. The provisioning process is quick because it integrates with multiple roles.

The configuration process is straightforward. There is nothing complex. 

It is affordable.

I would rate it an eight out of ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best.