Azure Network Watcher Reviews

We use this solution for traffic monitoring. For example, when you want to see requests or inspect packets within your cloud network, to see how the traffic is flowing, or how the traffic and the packets are being transmitted from one host to another, and from one source or resource to another.

To connect a virtual machine or if you want to monitor the communication between a VM and certain endpoints, we have to specify the endpoints to fully qualify the domain name. It determines how the traffic is flowing.

At the end of the day, it should show you this map or graph resource about your current setup, on how traffic is flowing within your network or your environment.

This will help the company or the administrator, by helping them see how the traffic moves, to make sure that no entities are having any communication issues or different endpoints with task issues. It can help them also spot which endpoints should not be communicating to others. This is the value of the Network Watcher.

I like that it delivers. It does the job.

It provides good visibility.

I don't find it that appealing.

It's not the most friendly or straightforward to set up. For me, it's not that appealing that I want to go ahead and set it up each time.

I don't see the value versus the way you have to set it up at first.

The initial setup and deployment could be improved to be simplified.

From my perspective, this is something that should be out of the box, available, and given. I don't see why there is a need to set it up. 

The experience should be there, the servers or the insights, they should be readily available out of the box, once you start setting up your environment on Azure.

The setup is a huge part of what needs to be better, as well as the view, or the graph could be improved. Microsoft has the capability to enrich it and to make it look more granular.

I would like to see a graph with simple diagrams and richer information.

I have used it or known about it for between four and five years. I rarely use it, but I know it pretty well.

Azure itself is pretty stable, but It depends on the different resources on Azure. For example, if the resources on Azure are not stable, then it would become unstable as well.

It's not a server that scales in a way that, when the traffic comes or there is heavy traffic or loads, it scales. You just monitor the traffic within your environment. I don't see how scalability applies.

I have not had to contact technical support regarding Network Watcher.

It's not that is complex, however, for the sake of what it does, yes, I would say it's complex.

It could be a lot easier. It could be a much simpler experience, especially when you can set up a whole infrastructure with a couple of clicks. I don't see why you have to perform so many steps or very specific steps with Network Watcher.

I don't remember the pricing.

I would rate Azure Network Watcher a six out of ten.

My primary use case is for troubleshooting some traffic between BMs for example, or from on-prem to the cloud. Because typically in my organization we have many layers of traffic and many energies.

The most valuable features I have found are typology, visualization, and capture.

I would like to see in the future if we can troubleshoot as a firewall because it is equipment as a network player and some diagnostics. It would be even helpful if we can improve Azure Network Watcher to have some scope to identify missing rules.

I have been working with Azure Network Watcher for more than five years now.

We have high reliability.

There is scalability and we currently have two hundred subscriptions.

The initial setup was straightforward and not complex. We have created an automation feature that allows for minimizing any delayed deployments.

I would rate Azure Network Watcher an eight out of ten.

Network Watcher allows you to see the logs to see what's going in and what's going out. You have got to set it up to see that, however, I haven't played much with it. That's why I was looking for something more granular, something that I'm more used to, like the FortiGate Firewall.

I've used it to get some logs and see what's going on to the network, however, that's about it.

The solution is stable.

Overall, the solution seems to be pretty good. 

Azure is good, however, the Fortinet GUI is more intuitive and I like it more than anything else.

I've used the solution for maybe a year or so. I haven't used it for that long just yet.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

I also use Fortinet products.

I cannot recall what the initial setup was like. I cannot speak to how easy or difficult it was. 

I'm currently looking at FortiGate Firewall, which I have a better understanding of and is much more granular.

We're a Microsoft partner. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.