Palo Alto Networks K2-Series Reviews

I am using Palo Alto Networks K2-Series as a perimeter firewall.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is its management abilities. Additionally, the updates are very good.

We had some issues with upgrading in the past. They could make the process easier.

Palo Alto Networks K2-Series has improved their central management but if they could improve upon it more that would be a great benefit.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks K2-Series for approximately 12 years.

The solution is very stable, we have had no issues.

We had some scalability issues with Palo Alto Networks K2-Series. I do not know how good the hardware firewalls are, but the cloud platform is scalable.

When we had some minor issues we were in contact with the technical support and they were very good. We have not used the support often.

The initial setup was easy.

When comparing Palo Alto Networks K2-Series with other solutions it is on the higher end of the price scale.

This solution is best suited for small to medium-sized businesses.

I rate Palo Alto Networks K2-Series a nine out of ten.

We use the solution to protect our network perimeter because we have some software products that have internet connectivity.

The most valuable features are the intuitive user interface, ease of use, and reporting.

They could improve by providing more features in the solution.

I have been using this solution for approximately one year.

The solution is stable. I have never had an issue using this solution since I started using it. I have not had any restarts or other troubles.

The solution is scalable but it depends on the hardware being used.

I have not needed to use the technical support since we have not had an issue.

The initial setup is easy.

I did the implementation myself.

The price of the solution is expensive. They should provide more features to match the high price of the solution.

I have evaluated Cisco and Fortinet firewalls solutions.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate Palo Alto Networks K2-Series a seven out of ten.

We use the firewalls to defend our perimeter and data center.

For me personally, the support, in general, is the feature I have found most valuable.

Palo Alto boasts a lot of great features that cover all markets from small businesses to large enterprises.

It's very easy to see everything on the dashboards. 

It would be nice if it could easily be integrated with Elasticsearch or Nagios for monitoring and reporting.

They should lower their prices for small businesses. They should offer subscriptions or box-sets because a lot of companies want to buy it, but they just can't afford it. 

It's not that expensive necessarily; the market is just doing poorly at the moment.

Everything I could possibly want has already been implanted into the new version, including the Internet of Things, machine learning, and SD-WAN; every feature I wanted has already been integrated.

I have been using this solution for roughly eight years.

Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is very stable. I've never had a problem with Palo Alto. The only problem we experienced with it was when the fan broke down — even then, it still kept on working without the fan. No harm was done and Palo Alto replaced it very quickly.

This solution is very scalable.

The initial setup was very straightforward. It only took us a few hours. On the other hand, deployment times vary. Sometimes it takes just a few hours, and other times, due to testing, it can take months. It's not complicated, but when you have to replace something, you have to consider the amount of testing before you put it into production.

We are the integrators.

I would recommend Palo Alto. With Cisco, when you engage Firepower, the performance decreases. Next generation functions with Palo Alto are much, much better. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks K2-Series a rating of ten.

You should always choose the best version of a solution. As your company grows, you will want to work with more power and better features. 

We primarily use the solution as a next-generation firewall.

This company is a leader in the space.

The company is inventive and always adds a lot of great features.

The support on the solution is excellent.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

The company needs to align better with the customer. At the price point they offer, they need to be as good or better than the competition. They're losing market because they aren't there yet in that regard.

When it comes to renewing the solution, they tend to try to jack up the pricing.

We've been using the solution for almost five years now.

From a hardware point of view, we don't face any issues whatsoever. It's not glitchy or buggy. It doesn't crash. it's reliable.

The technical support has been excellent. We've very satisfied with the level of service they provide. It's one of the main selling features of the product.

Compared to the competition, support is excellent across the board.

We don't find the solution to be overly complex in terms of the initial setup. They make their implementation process pretty clear.

The deployment can happen in one week. It doesn't take too long. Sometimes, if you are new to the product, it might take a month or so.

We tend to use consultants when we implement the solution.

The licensing costs are too high. They need to become more competitive in that regard. We constantly need to bargain to get better pricing.

They tend to take advantage once the product has been sold to us. From a renewal point of view, the price is very high. They are demanding. That itself is creating a bad mark on them.

From a cost perspective, I'd rate the solution two out of ten.

I am trying to avoid Palo Alto, even though they have a very good solution, specifically due to the cost. 

We're just a customer.

From a technical support perspective, I'd easily rate them nine out of ten. If they didn't try to price gouge on renewals, I'd likely rate them higher.

Due to their pricing strategy, especially around renewals, I would not recommend them. We have 20+ firewalls, and we feel the heat when it comes time to renew the solution.

We are a system integrator and this Palo Alto K2-Series is one of the firewall products that we implement for our customers.

This firewall is very good for our customers because they don't have to write their own rules for adding an application.

The WildFire feature is very good.

Using Panorama and the web interface makes it easy to manage.

The reporting functionality in GlobalProtect needs to be improved. Other products, such as Check Point, have better reporting features that give more reports.

The price of the K2-Series should be lowered.

The dashboard could be improved by adding more GUI components.

We have about three years of experience with the Palo Alto K2-Series in my company, although I have only been working with this solution for about one year.

Palo Alto is very stable. In my previous job, I had not faced any stability issues.

All of the higher-level Palo Alto products are scalable.

We are the first level of support for our customers. If the problem is very complicated and we cannot solve it then we open a case through the distributor, which is the second level. After that, if they cannot solve it, the case is escalated directly to the Palo Alto technical team. Generally, if we cannot solve it then the distributor cannot either.

We also have experience with Check Point firewalls, as well as with solutions from Fortinet. I think that Palo Alto is better than Check Point in terms of threat prevention, and both of these are better than Fortinet. Palo Alto, however, is very expensive compared to Fortinet.

Check Point has better reporting and a better dashboard but is more difficult to install. Price-wise, they are similar.

The initial setup is very easy compared to Check Point. It is not hard for me to install and configure features such as High Availability.

We implement and deploy this solution for our customers. We also provide maintenance and support.

Palo Alto firewalls are very expensive.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are a solution provider and the Palo Alto K2-Series is one of the products that we implement for our clients. Our clients for this work in a variety of sectors.

Palo Alto has a unique solution for DNS security, which is very good. It includes signatures for the domains and machine learning functionality. It is currently the most popular feature for our customers.

The URL Filtering module needs to have more categories added to it.

The concept of clustering would be of benefit to Palo Alto and it would make it more productive. For example, with Forcepoint, you can cluster two different products.

We have seen no issues with stability.

Scalability is good.

We are satisfied with the technical support.

I am also familiar with the next-generation firewall solution by Forcepoint.

Palo Alto is similar to other commercial firewalls but it has two unique functions. First, the engine is very sophisticated and well suited to the epicenter. It also has good performance. The second area that is unique is DNS Security.

I am familiar with Fortinet products and they are also very good, but they are cheaper than Palo Alto.

The initial setup is straightforward.

While the firewall itself is on-premises, some of the services such as DNS Security and WildFire are cloud-based options that depend on a public cloud or the Palo Alto cloud. There are also options such as Cortext XDR, which has traps that extend to the cloud.

Pricing is a sensitive issue because the cost is high in this market. If the price were reduced then it would be very good because it will be more competitive with vendors such as Fortinet. In fact, I would say that pricing is the weakest point of this solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are a system integrator and the Palo Alto K2-Series is one of the network solutions that we implement for our clients.

Many of the implementations that I am part of are for the banking sector in Egypt and generally, they are not interested in cloud-based solutions. The K2-Series is well-suited for this use case.

This Palo Alto firewall is easy to manage. You just implement it and forget about it. The Panorama management tool is very easy to use.

The documentation is good.

The partner support, which is a local company, is not that good and can be improved.

I would like to see the threat intelligence capability integrated with other vendors such as Cisco and Forcepoint. This would effectively be a multi-threat intelligence solution. Along the same lines, it would be useful to share threat signatures with different vendors.

I have been working with this solution for more than 18 months.

All on-premises firewall solutions have an issue with scalability if they aren't designed correctly from day one. You have to measure with consideration for future expansion and include it in your design, otherwise, you will get stuck.

There are two categories of support. There is partner support, which in my case is a local company in Egypt. The support provided by the partner is not very good. However, when you purchase vendor support, it is very good.

I have experience with similar products from several vendors including Cisco, Juniper, Forcepoint, and Fortinet.

The initial setup is straightforward and easy to do.

Our in-house team implements this solution for our customers.

This is an expensive solution, although you will get value for the price.

Palo Alto is the leader in next-generation firewalls. The suitability of it, however, depends on the design, throughput, and the number of sessions.

Overall, this is a very simple and very effective firewall, and I am satisfied with it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the firewalls that we provide to our customers.

The majority of our customers for Palo Alto products are in the banking industry.

The most valuable features are the virtualization of the firewall and the antivirus.

The ease of management and configuration should be improved.

The price of the K2 series could be lower.

I have been familiar with the Palo Alto K2 series for three years.

This is a stable firewall.

The scalability is very good.

The technical support is good.

We work with multiple vendors including Fortinet, Cisco, Juniper, and Palo Alto.

The initial setup is straightforward but when you have a more advanced configuration, it is more difficult. For example, configuring policies can be complex.

This solution is expensive compared to other, similar products.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to ensure that they have the policies correct.

Overall, this is a very good product that is doing well in the market here.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I am a network security engineer and this is one of the products that make up our security solution. We implement this product for our clients.

The most valuable feature is security.

The technical support, and how they provide it to the client, needs to be improved. They take too long to provide answers.

I would like to have a statistical report that shows the number of times that each rule is used.

I have been working with the Palo Alto K2 series for about three years.

This is a very reliable firewall and we have never had problems with it.

This firewall is scalable. Our clients vary in size. They are small and medium-sized businesses, as well as enterprises.

I deal with a number of different firewalls including solutions by Cisco, Check Point, and Palo Alto.

This is an easy firewall to set up, although the length of time required to deploy depends on a number of variables. For example, a complex environment will be more complex and take longer to configure. This type of setup could take a week but a simpler one could take a day or two.

We have an in-house team for deployment. I can do it by myself, or I can ask my colleagues because several of them can do it as well.

Overall, this is a very good firewall and I would recommend it. With respect to security, it is a perfect solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Palo Alto has an approach that makes the configuration easier not only for the customers but also for the IT help for the customers. 

In terms of what needs improvement, Palo Alto is lacking abilities that other firewalls can do. They disable the current sessions when you think the hardest part is done. They have a workaround for authentication, but then our clients just use the local database of the device itself.

Some of the small to medium businesses are using these features and it would be easier for us to upsell the product up to other networks. Palo Alto Networks is quite a bit higher when it comes to prices. They should implement the features that the other firewalls have.

In the next release, I would like for them to include a checkbox where the user could disable concurrent users of the portal.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks K2-Series for six months. 

When it comes to bug fixes, bugs will be fixed through a software upgrade or another fix.

Scalability is easy to do because we just have to know the number of users.

If I'm going to rate the support of Palo Alto, I would give it an 8 out of ten because they have good engineers, but sometimes I think that they take too long to respond to my queries. But most of them are very good.

The initial setup is easy. I have very little knowledge really in procedures, but I could connect to the internet and it was easy to follow when initially configuring the firewall.

The time to configure will depend on the client. If the client is just a small to medium business it will only take a day or two to configure it.

My advice to someone considering this solution would be that it's okay to spend a bit higher on your security products because Palo Alto is a bit more expensive than other products, but it is definitely worth it. The granularity of Palo Alto gives you more control over the security of your network.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.