Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention Reviews

I find the malware protection very handy. The solution has many features that save me time. 

I think they can use some improvement on FID. There are lots of false positives and those can be eradicated. Sometimes you can't identify a 10-year-old doc, but they can probably update those signatures and false positives, so it would be helpful and save us a lot of time. 

I think the stability can improve.

We haven't used the technical support yet because we have our own team of experts.

We used an expert to help us with the initial setup and installation.

It is an expensive solution and I would like to see a drop in price.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution a nine. In the next version, I would like to see a drop in price and more stability.

The primary use is for application control and encryption.

The application control and vulnerability protection are the most valuable features.

The IPS can be improved on the solution.  The itineration, for example. Also, if additional features, like SD Wan, etc. can be added. This would be helpful.

Other additional features that could be added include Individual Traps. In terms of enhancement for overall protection, we would like more Traps or other solutions that are developing within the firewall.

The solution needs to improve its local technical support services. There is no premium support offered in our market.

The solution is very stable. We've used it a number of years and never had any problems. However, only just recently, we found a bug on the model 2220. Other than that, the solution is quite stable.

The scalability of the solution is very good. In our company, we have about 2,000 users.

Technical support is okay, but we have an issue here in terms of local support and company support. Palo Alto doesn't provide premium support directly. It forces us to use third-party support and local distributors. Sometimes it's difficult for us to communicate and get support.

One of the reasons that our clients choose Palo Alto is because they have complex networks, therefore the setup is typically also complex.

Compared to other security offerings, Palo Alto is very expensive. Palo Alto also doesn't offer many discounts. They may discount as much as 15%. However, in comparison, Cisco can give a discount of up to 85%.

We work with the public and private cloud as well as the on-premises deployment models. Our role is to implement security solutions at our customer's premises. The deployment depends on the infrastructure.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten. As a next-generation IPS, it's a very good firewall. I would recommend it.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall.

It's not so easy to set up a test environment because it's not so easy to get the test license.

The vendor only gives you 90 days for a test license; it's a tough license to get.

The stability of the solution is quite good.

So far, scalability is okay, but you don't really need too much scalability in a firewall solution.

Technical support is good. We do get some support from the reseller.

We do have other solutions that we run in parallel, but it isn't like we had one solution and then we switched to Palo Alto.

The initial setup was straightforward. It's quite easy. Deployment took one to two weeks.

The pricing is a bit higher than the competition, but it's okay. The cost seems cheaper than Cisco's Firepower.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

The solution is very good, especially compared to other solutions. I would rate it nine out of ten. It also offers re-instruction detection and prevention software, which we also use in conjunction with the Threat Prevention solution.

Our primary use case for Palo Alto Threat Prevention is related to the placement of files in a laboratory test environment. We use Palo Alto Threat Prevention for network testing.

I can't give an example of how Palo Alto has improved our organization because we are using this product in test networks.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Threat Prevention for our company is the next generation firewall.

The organization mail security solutions could be improved. There is no mail security solution available.

Palo Alto Threat Prevention is naturally stable in operations.

I don't see a problem with Palo Alto Threat Prevention in scalability. Because it's a testing product for use it only for test alignment.

We have maybe 10 or 12 engineers dedicated to the solution. Only engineers are using this product. For deployment and maintenance, only one staff.

We use Palo Alto Threat Prevention just for testing.

Palo Alto's technical support is very good.

The setup of Palo Alto Threat Prevention is very easy and straightforward. From initial configuration to deployment, it took maybe one day.

We did not use an integrator, re-seller, or consultant for the deployment.

I would rate Palo Alto Threat Prevention a nine out of ten overall. I would prefer better mail security features.

For a total overall solution, Palo Alto Threat Prevention can satisfy most of your needs as a company. Right now, we are implementing Cisco ASA and renewing our Palo Alto license.

All of the Palo Alto Threat Prevention functions are good. We feel like the product is comfortable to use and is what it should be. 

Palo Alto Threat Prevention is recommended for large enterprise organizations and SMEs. We have good results on our follow up calls with clients using the software.

Most of the features of Palo Alto Threat Prevention are alright. I recommend features like content filtering, IP address, & intelligent firewalls. The reporting feature is very good.

In most areas, Palo Alto Threat Prevention is a fine choice. The application is very good. The most important feature we find to be the NCR Reader. It is best for application security. I don't know how they could improve it more. The application is already working fine with good results. 

Support is really good with Palo Alto and we are resellers of the software to our customers. They will let us know how they find it valuable after we implement it. Most of our customers have found Palo Alto Threat Prevention very good to use. We have a number of customers in the market. Everybody is happy with the product. Overall, Palo Alto Threat Prevention doesn't need much more. From a general point of view, you get everything. If it is content filtering, it should be no problem.

The stability of Palo Alto Threat Prevention is very good when compared to Cisco.

Generally, to deploy it will take some downtime, about a day. For customization, it will take you a little more time. For the maintenance, around one week. It depends on the project.

For most projects, I have around three people dedicated to product support and maintenance.

The scalability of Palo Alto Threat Prevention is very good. For most of the requirements, we find it very easy to implement and deploy.

We have about 20,000 users on Level One, 80 agents at Level Two, and around 30 big operations on Level Three.

For me, Palo Alto Threat Prevention customer support is very good. I am happy with the technical support from Palo Alto.

We just replaced a firewall, so we didn't find the setup to be complex. We have network rules to convert. For the rules and connections, we use tools from Palo Alto to convert them.

We implement the firewall setup for our customers. It generally takes a little bit of time, i.e. one or two weeks to customize the policy that they use. 

The old rules we can remove with Palo Alto Threat Prevention, which is nice.

We take licensing on a yearly basis. Palo Alto provides a straightforward cost structure on the annual plan.

If you are a first time user, you should be pretty pleased with it. I would rate Palo Alto Threat Prevention a nine out of ten.

We use the firewall in the network.

It protects us from cyber attacks.

One of the most valuable features is the anti-malware protection.

Right now we are focusing on email. If Palo Alto can increase the features related to email filtering and the new malware, it would help us protect our systems.

I think the stability is better than Fortinet or Check Point

The scalability is there, for an enterprise network or a big company. It's good. It can support many endpoints and servers. We have over 2,000 users, most of them are end-users.

Technical support is good. There are no problems with it.

Before, we used Fortinet and Check Point.

The setup is neither complex nor easy. We worked with the vendor and they have more experience than us. For the PoC they did the configuration for us and we were able to learn from them.

Our deployment took about two months.

It's not too expensive. It's a more powerful tool for IT companies that need a next-generation tool.

We are resellers of this solution so we facilitate technical services to our clients. We maintain Palo Alto for what we are responsible for maintaining, on the latest version of the software.

It's a monster, it's got so many beautiful features. We do deal with other firewalls and we've got a better idea of what other firewalls' capabilities are. In any comparison with the Palo Alto, I liked the quality of service on the applications that you can control the amount of bandwidth an application is allowed to consume. The best feature is the quality of the application quality of service.

We haven't had any stability problems. Maybe once or twice the cache was released fairly quickly. There were no stability issues.

There isn't a firewall on earth available at the moment that's more scalable than Palo Alto. It's in the tens of thousands. We are servicing clients and we tally all the users from those clients together and it's in the tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. We are a reseller, so I can only speak in terms of our clients. We have at least tens of thousands of users. Palo Alto is the most scalable firewall out there by far.

In Africa, the technical support is probably not as good as in Europe and the USA because it's a specific premium support, partner-enabled premium support and all of that. But it's really good, I don't really have any complaints, it's fairly good. I'll give them 80%.

One of the reasons we chose the Palo Alto firewall is because it's probably one of the simplest firewalls to set up, it's very intuitive. We've done probably around 50 deployments and depending on the size and scope it takes around five hours but sometimes an implementation could take five months. It's very difficult to say how long it takes, but if you compare it with other firewalls, the implementation cycles of Palo Alto beat them hands down.

The pricing and the licensing are pretty competitive at this stage. As a reseller, I would like to see the price come down a little bit so I can compete better against other firewalls because we do that all the time. Especially on these smaller firewalls and so on, we need to be a bit more competitive. Palo Alto is a company that focuses more on the high endS, high-speed class type of massive organizations and firewalls and so on, which is why they are the most scalable firewall. In Africa, the organizations tend to be smaller than you would get in Europe, the USA, China and those types of places so we tend to sell more of the smaller firewalls. Palo Alto's smallest firewall at this stage is very expensive which makes it difficult, but then again it's just not the area that they're really playing in. It still outperforms any of the other firewalls.

It's a brilliant product, we periodically look at several other firewalls to stay on top of their capabilities and so on, and it's the best bang for your buck that you can get. Some of the other firewalls are starting to catch up. I implemented a baby, which could be regarded as a baby Palo Alto firewall. We pushed through in a single day with everything switched on, all the capabilities switched on, we pushed through 4.3 terabytes of data per day. Which is phenomenal for such a baby, little firewall, with all the capabilities switched on, it's absolutely mind-boggling that it handled that, and it did. It was at a university that we implemented it. 

The advice that I would give is to partner with somebody that has the necessary skills to implement it. Buy from somebody that has proven skills to implement the product because if you don't have a partner to implement the product, that knows the product, and is qualified, it's pretty useless buying the product.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Its Wi-Fi feature actually attracted me a lot. Also, sandboxing can be done.

Basically, on the server side, it alerts me to threats. We are working to begin reporting on this. It affects me a lot. 

Some bugs, which will be rectified by Palo Alto in the next update.

Almost one year.

No issues. I do not have issues with stability.

For my organization, there is more than enough scalability for me. It is good for me. Exactly what I want.

Their support is very good. For some features, which I don't know. I used to address these with the technical guys. They support me very well on this. 

I used to use ASA, which is now owned by Cisco. I feel Palo Alto is more advanced and has better features than ASA. 

It is not very complex, actually. Firewalls can handle it. 

Yeah, I checked out other products, like Fortigate and Firepower. When we compared Palo Alto and FortiGate, the word from the community, which I came to know, was FortiGate was not stable. Though Palo Alto is slower than Fortigate. When we consider the long-term brands, Palo Alto is much more stable than Fortigate. 

It is one of the best services out there. 

We use the solution for network segregation.

The solution has many automation features.

There could be some firewalls with fiber optics interfaces.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention for one and a half years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

The solution is scalable. It can consume all firewall capabilities.

We have more than 2,000 to 3,000 users using this solution.

The initial setup is very complex.

My customers, even those with private technologies, feel they made the right choice by going with Palo Alto—the numbers back this up as our revenue continues to grow. In Italy, we've seen significant quarter-over-quarter and year-over-year growth. This is the most compelling evidence that the market appreciates our product.

The solution comes with a license.

Palo Alto is one of the most advanced solutions in the market. No vendor is acting similarly at the moment.

The solution is suitable for automation and to protect the network productively. It has a reasonable cost in terms of investment because the price is not excessive in terms of security level.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.