Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to protect small businesses that work within the defense industrial base.

By using Prisma Access, we can easily connect to our network from different locations around the world without having to deploy multiple firewalls. This not only makes it more convenient but also saves us a lot of expenses.

Prisma Access is the most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

The ability to provide secure access to people without having to carry an additional device around really benefits us in the defense industrial base.

The training provided is satisfactory, but there is certainly room for improvement. It would be great to have more comprehensive training at a lower cost, or even for free.

I would say that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform for many, but not all.

Having everything in one pane of glass is important to me because I have a lot of responsibilities. It would be really nice to have everything in one place, so I don't have to switch around between different applications and can stay focused on one platform.

It's important to have machine learning embedded, but it's equally important to not solely rely on it. We still need human interaction to ensure proper security measures. Nonetheless, machine learning is a vital component of our security strategy.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for five years.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have been instrumental in reducing our downtime as we moved away from less robust devices. By implementing Palo Alto firewalls, we have significantly improved our network stability.

If I had to estimate, it has saved us 10 to 15 hours per year.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a very stable solution.

I haven't encountered the need to scale the solution yet. Our current setup meets our requirements and has been working well for us. Given that we are a small company, we have not felt the need to look into scaling it at this point.

The technical support provided by Palo Alto Networks is excellent. Although I have only needed to contact them a few times, they have always been quick to respond, and their team is very knowledgeable.

I would rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Before, we used SonicWall, but we decided to switch to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls because they offer a much better solution and are leading the market.

I was part of the deployment team, but since I was new to Palo Alto devices, the deployment process was more complex for me. That's where the training came into play.

I had to familiarize myself with their user interface and terminologies since I was used to using a different system. It took some time for me to learn and compare it with what I've used before.

We purchased from a reseller.

It was a straightforward process. We made the purchase online and they shipped it to us. After that, it was a matter of getting it up and running.

It's difficult to determine. When looking at the ten to fifteen hours a year, it's unclear whether or not I would consider that as part of the return on investment. It's a bit challenging to assess from an IT perspective.

Reducing costs is important, especially since Prisma can be expensive. It would be great if it were more affordable.

Although the hardware can be expensive, the quality of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is excellent. While a lower cost would be desirable, we recognize the value of investing in a reliable and effective solution.

When we were moving away from SonicWall, we evaluated FortiGate and Meraki's solutions.

In my opinion, I was impressed with FortiGate's system on a chip. It was really fast compared to Palo Alto's, but I think Palo Alto has a better feature set and interface. As for SonicWall, we had several reasons for leaving. Regarding Meraki, I find their management interface not suitable for my needs, and they seem to be more of a consumer-grade or prosumer-grade product.

I am not in a position to comment on the solution's ability to secure data centers consistently across all workplaces, from the smallest office to the largest data centers since I have only used their smaller solutions.

My advice to those who are seeking a firewall solution is not to prioritize the cheapest or the fastest options, as it could be risky. Instead, it is important to invest in the best quality firewall that is within your budget. This is something that I have experienced with Palo Alto Networks, which provides a high-quality solution that is worth the investment.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine out of ten.

The experience has been amazing, with a few sessions resulting in new services that I can offer my company directly. The best part is that I can do it without having to invest in an expensive tool that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It does impact the purchases we will make throughout the year.

If I can perform 95% of the work at a lower cost, we are unlikely to consider Mandiant and spend a significant amount of money. 

We deployed Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for inbound and outbound protection, as well as DMC protection, in our data center.

The key aspect of this solution that provides the most value is its next-gen capabilities, which represented a significant change for us. Previously, we had been using Check Point.

We switched to this solution due to its advanced next-gen capabilities, which allowed us to create rules based on applications rather than ports or protocols. As a result, the solution became much more relevant to our needs compared to our previous solution.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls allowed for more flexibility in defining rules, as it was based on applications rather than strict port and protocol definitions. This made it easier to adapt to changing needs and configurations.

We were able to automate things using the API. Savings are minimal, but we save a significant amount of time when we deploy rules that we learn when we deploy the policy. Is the process still the same? Perhaps the implementation will take only a few hours or minutes.

We have been exclusively using it for the Next-Gen firewall, MDPN, and remote access for a while.

It integrates the core capabilities into one.

To make it more affordable, we had to separate the integrated features into individual components. The integrated solution was more expensive than when we broke it down into separate components.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for over five years, and perhaps even as long as ten years.

The stability of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is very good.

We have upgraded it several times for additional features, and we have never experienced any crashes or performance issues. Overall, it has been quite stable.

In terms of scalability, the cost is a limiting factor. We can buy a large number of them, but it would not make financial sense for us to do so due to the high cost.

In contrast to the cloud environment where you can scale incrementally and horizontally, in our case, we have to purchase the entire unit. As a result, scaling our responsibilities becomes challenging.

We have around 2,000 compute resources that need protection, so getting a large firewall is necessary to safeguard our environment.

Technical support is very good.

I would rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

F5 and Cloudflare are types of support that were really good. There is no escalation whatsoever. The first person you get to already is the top-notch technical person.

With Palo Alto, you have to escalate, but eventually, you get to a good one.

Positive

The deployment process was easy.

We used a migration tool to transfer from our previous firewall to Palo Alto, and it proved to be quick.

We received support from a Palo Alto sales engineer.

While Palo Alto is expensive, it's still the better option compared to the other two vendors that were evaluated since they didn't provide the necessary performance and benefits.

Overall, the expenses for Palo Alto are manageable, and it's worth the investment.

It's too expensive.

Although Palo Alto is a good and fast product, it is not the most affordable option out there, and it may not be the easiest to use.

We evaluated Cisco and Fortinet.

During our evaluation process for selecting a firewall vendor, we prioritize performance as the number one factor. 

Price range is ranked second in importance. 

Other important factors include ease of use, API support, and next-gen features, all of which are used as evaluation criteria. We have previously used Magic Quadrant, but it is important for us to carefully choose our firewall vendor.

Integrating machine learning at the core of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls would be highly beneficial. The ability to automatically detect threats without the need to create rule sets manually would be a game changer.

Attending events like RSA is valuable to me because it allows me to explore different vendors and products. Sometimes, I come across new vendors that I haven't heard of before, which is good.

Attending events like RSA can have a significant impact on our company's cybersecurity purchases throughout the year. If we come across a new vendor with a fresh approach to protecting the company or identifying threats, we are definitely interested in exploring their offerings.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight out of ten.

We use them to do quite a bit of URL filtering, threat prevention, and we also use GlobalProtect. And application visibility is huge for us. Rather than having to do port-based firewalling, we're able to take it to an application level.

We have quite a number of security pieces that are implemented for our network, such as a DNS piece, although we're not using Palo Alto for that purpose. But with that, in line with our seam, we're able to better distinguish what normal traffic looks like versus what a potential threat would look like. That's how we're leveraging the NG Firewalls. Also, we have separated the network for our databases and we only allow specific users or specific applications to communicate with them. They're not using the traditional port base, they're using application-aware ports to make sure that the traffic that has come in is what it says it is.

Machine learning in Palo Alto's firewalls, for securing networks against threats that are able to evolve and morph rapidly, has helped us out significantly, in implementation with different security software and processes. The combination allows our security analysts to determine the type of traffic that is flowing through our network and to our devices. We're able to collect the logs that Palo Alto generates to determine if there's any type of intrusion in our network.

The machine learning in the core of the firewalls, for inline, real-time attack prevention, is very important to us. With the malware and ransomware threats that are out there, to keep abreast of and ahead of those types of attacks, it's important for our devices to be able to use AI to distinguish when there is malicious traffic or abnormal traffic within our environment, and then notify us.

The fact that in the NSS Labs Test Report from July 2019 about Palo Alto NG Firewalls, 100 percent of the evasions were blocked, is very important to us. 

The SD-WAN product is fairly new. They could probably improve that in terms of customizing it and making the configuration a little bit easier.

I've been using Palo Alto NG Firewalls for about five years.

The firewalls are very stable. We've had no issues with downtime.

They're very scalable. Because we use Panorama, we're able to have global firewall rules for areas that we want to block, across the network, for security reasons. We just push those down to all the devices in one shot.

Our corporate site has about 500 users, and our 14 remote sites, because they're retail, usually have anywhere from five to 10 users each.

Their support is generally very knowledgeable. Sometimes it depends though on who you get, but they've always addressed our issues in a timely manner.

We were using older versions of Palo Alto's firewalls and we also had Cisco firewalls in our environment.

For our remote stores we're able to use Panorama, along with Palo Alto's Zero Touch Provisioning hardware. Once a device is connected to the internet and can communicate back to our Panorama, it just pulls the configurations. That means it's very easy to deploy.

It took about two to three months to deploy about 14 sites. That wasn't because we were having issues, it was just the way we scheduled the deployment, because we had to bring down different entities and had to schedule them accordingly with a maintenance window. But if it wasn't for that scheduling, within a week we could have deployed all of the remote sites.

For our implementation strategy, at our corporate site we had both old and new firewalls sitting side by side on the network. As we went to a remote site we would take them from their legacy Cisco and cut them over to the new firewall. Once that was done, we moved all of the firewall rules that were on the old firewall over to the new one.

When it comes to maintenance and administration of the firewalls, my team of five people is responsible. We have a network architect, a network specialist, two senior network specialists, and a security manager.

We did it by ourselves. We have a certified Palo Alto engineer on staff and he did all the installation.

Definitely look into a multi-year license, as opposed to a single-year. That will definitely be more beneficial in terms of cost. We went with five-year licenses. After looking at the overall costs, we calculate that we're only paying for four years, because it works out such that the last year is negligible. If we were to be billed yearly, the last year's costs would be a lot more. With the five-year plan we're saving about a year's worth of licenses.

Based on the quantity of devices we purchased, we found that the hardware price was actually cheaper than most of the other vendors out there.

If a colleague at another company were to say, "We are just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall," given my experience with Palo Alto's NG Firewalls, my answer would depend on the size of the company and how much traffic they're going to be generating. Palo Alto is definitely not the cheapest, but if you scale it the right way it will be very comparable to what's out there.

One of the things we like about Palo Alto is the fact that the hardware appliances we have are not impacted in terms of resources. The CPU and memory stay low, so we don't have a bottleneck where it's trying to process a whole bunch of traffic and things are slow. We were looking at various brands because we were going from older hardware to newer, and we wanted to evaluate what the other vendors were doing. After that evaluation, we were comfortable that Palo Alto would be able to handle all of our network traffic without impacting performance.

We looked at Fortinet and Cisco. Cisco is a bit pricey when compared to our Palo Altos. Fortinet was definitely cheaper, but we were skeptical about their performance when we bundled all of the features that we wanted. We didn't think it was going to be fast enough to handle the network traffic that we were generating across the board. We believe Cisco would have handled our traffic, but their next-gen platform, along with SD-WAN, required us to have two separate devices. It wasn't something that would have been on one platform. That's probably why we didn't go down that road.

Part of what we considered when we were looking around was how familiar we were with the technology. That was also a big area for us. Most of the guys on our team were pretty familiar with Cisco and Palo Alto devices. They weren't too familiar with Fortinet or Check Point. We narrowed it down based on if we had a security breach, how easy would it be for us to start gathering information, remediating and troubleshooting, and looking at the origin of the threat. We looked at that versus having to call support because we weren't too familiar with a particular product. That was huge for us when we were doing the evaluation of these products.

Other than the SD-WAN, everything else has been functioning like our previous setup because it's a pretty similar license. The way that the new hardware handles URL filtering, threat protection, and GlobalProtect has been pretty solid. I don't have any issues with those.

Overall, I would rate Palo Alto NG Firewalls at nine out of 10. It's definitely not the cheapest product out there. Cost is the main reason I wouldn't put it at a 10.

Our primary use case is protecting our clients from remote threats on the internet. These firewalls are very powerful and important for our business.

With single-pass architecture, there isn't a trade-off between security and network performance. The device functions well in terms of both security and network performance together.

One of the most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is application symmetries. I like this feature.

Also, the embedded machine learning in the core of the firewall means the device learns about threat types. The machine learning also enables the solution to secure networks against threats that evolve rapidly.

The solution also provides a unified platform that integrates all security capabilities, which helps prevent external attacks, and eliminates the need for multiple network security tools and the effort needed to make them work together.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for about six years.

The stability is good. It's a very stable device. That is the biggest lesson I have learned from using them.

The scalability is very good. If our customer has distributed networks, Palo Alto is a good solution.

In general, the solution is good for midsize companies, between 100 and 2,000 users.

We plan to increase our usage of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls in the future.

I rate the technical support highly. Palo Alto's technical team is very helpful and provides fast solutions.

We previously used Palo Alto Cortex. We switched because the NG Firewalls are very stable, flexible, and more powerful.

The initial setup is easy. The initial config takes one or two hours. After that, the time needed depends on the customer's requirements.

For mid-sized networks, the solution requires two to three people for deployment and maintenance. But in our company, we manage with one person for everything.

My responsibilities are on the technical side, but the price is expensive, especially in Turkey, where I am located. The exchange rate of the dollar against the Turkish lira is very high, making Palo Alto very expensive in our country.

Palo Alto is very expensive compared to other vendors, like Fortinet.

In addition to the standard fees, there is an extra cost for a GlobalProtect License, and that is something we generally need.

If a colleague were to say they are just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I don't know what I would say if they don't have the budget. But if they have a budget, I would recommend Palo Alto because, while another solution may be cheaper, it could be more expensive in total if you consider the potential loss of business continuity and reputation.

And while I don't use the PA-400 series, I know it sells well because the higher series are very expensive, and the 200 series is very slow and less powerful. The PA-400 series is good.

This solution helps us standardize. We have a presence in the Americas, the Pacific, and Europe and have to manage three firewalls. The previous solution made it difficult to standardize, but with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, it's a little simpler. It just makes it a pleasant experience overall.

Security is the biggest thing nowadays, including threat response, incident response, and root cause. We found that a lot of the logging and dashboard capabilities offered by Palo Alto fill the missing skill gap that you run up against. It makes it easier for our tier-two staff to get involved in some of the deeper root cause analysis. The dashboards, logs, and reports make it easier for our staff to dive right in and not get lost in what tools they should use. It's easy because they're all right there.

Our firewall engineers like the automations that are involved with the firewall rules. For example, we integrate with Azure, and Azure constantly updates the IP addresses for their whitelists. There are hundreds. With the previous solution that we had, our firewall administrators had to hand-jam a lot of their IP addresses, so it became more of a deterrent to manage the firewall because of the overhead involved. Now that it's automated with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, they've been more apt to use the tool than they did previously.

It allows our firewall administrators to speak more confidently when we have an incident response. When they detail their root cause analysis and possibly what the problem is, the leadership receives that information with a little more confidence, and it's a little more palatable. This makes our lives easier when dealing with an incident response.

From a leadership perspective, the reports are genuine, palatable, and easy to understand. They allow me to make logical leaps.

There are servers that go along with Palo Alto, at least for the identity management part. We chose to use a Windows platform, so the only maintenance involved is the patching of the servers and then the occasional agent upgrade for the servers. Palo Alto versions would need to be upgraded as well, along with security patches.

For the most part, we don't see it as a lot of overhead in terms of maintenance. We try to have a maintenance weekend each month for our network team, in addition to a patch maintenance weekend for our system administrators. Overall, we really haven't had to patch.

As part of our internet filtering, we integrate heavily with Active Directory, and we use security groups to separate staff into two groups: those who should have full access to the internet and those who should have limited access. It may be just the way the topology is for our domain controllers and that infrastructure, but at peak usage, there seems to be a delay in reading back against the security group to find out what group the user is in.

We've been using it for roughly five years.

It's deployed on-premises, but we are presently moving into Azure, so we are looking at the Palo Alto appliances for that environment as well.

Stability-wise, we have three regions in which we use Palo Alto, and we are not pegging the resources for these boxes at all. They're meeting and exceeding our expectations in terms of stability, but we're definitely not pushing them to the limit.

In terms of the scalability of the appliance itself, there are some licenses that you can upgrade where you don't have to bolt on any hardware. You may have to upgrade a module. The supporting appliances are VMs that we stand up in the data center, and those handle more of the identity management pieces of the Palo Alto solution.

Palo Alto's technical support has been great. We recently had an issue with DNS where we were having difficulties tracking where an endpoint was making DNS requests. We got a little lost in some of the admin consoles for Palo Alto. We opened a service request, the call was returned within two hours, and an administrator from Palo Alto stayed on the phone with our engineers for about three hours and really helped us by generating some unique queries.

I would rate technical support an eight out of ten with respect to the engineers. They've been very responsive and quick. They have always followed up within the timeframe that Palo Alto said that they would.

Positive

We switched because of the end of life in a hardware's life cycle. With us moving into the cloud and having a much larger endpoint presence, we wanted something that was a little more robust. We also had fewer head counts for our firewall or network administrator staff. So, we wanted a tool that we could access easily and not have such a large training curve. We went with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls because it made a little more sense for us.

In terms of ROI, protecting our customers is obviously number one. The implementation of our previous solution required agents to be installed on all our endpoints. That was a little more difficult because we have a large number of endpoints globally. The administrative overhead to manage the updates for those agents was not favorable.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls allowed us to rely more on the existing infrastructure, Active Directory, to help us with identity management and security groups. It has made it simpler to manage.

We evaluated two other options. 

The sales team that assisted us with refining our requirements and explaining some of the new feature sets that are coming out helped us see that some of our requirements were no longer needed. It really helped us to learn more about the service that we were looking for, and Palo Alto just made it an easier discussion for us.

I recommend fully engaging Palo Alto's sales team. They're very knowledgeable and very friendly. We have three regions, PAC, Europe, and the Americas, and time zones and the quality of support always come into question when you're spread out. We haven't seen any gaps no matter what time zone we had a problem with in terms of sales and post-support. It has been great all the way around.

Overall, I would give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a rating of eight on a scale of one to ten.

We use it as an Internet-facing parameter firewall. In my environment, it has security and routing. It is on a critical path in terms of routing, where it does a deep inspection, etc.

There have been a lot of improvements from security to service.

It is critical that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. In my environments, we have an integration with a third-party vendor. As soon as there is new information about new threats and the destination that they are trying to reach on any of our network devices, that traffic will be stopped.

Setting up a VPN is quite easy. 

It gives you a lot of information when you are monitoring traffic. 

In terms of user experience, Palo Alto has very good user administration.

Machine learning is important. Although we have not exhausted the full capabilities of the firewall using machine learning, the few things that we are able to do are already very good because we have an integration with a third-party. We are leveraging that third-party to get threat intelligence for some destinations that are dangerous, as an example. Any traffic that tries to go to those destinations is blocked automatically. There is a script that was written, then embedded, that we worked on with the third-party. So, machine learning is actually critical for our business.

There is a bit of limitation with its next-generation capabilities. They could be better. In terms of logs, I feel like I am a bit limited as an administrator. While I see a lot of logs, and that is good, it could be better.

I wanted Palo Alto Networks engineering to look at the traffic log, because I see traffic being dropped that happens to be legitimate. It would be interesting for me to just right click on the traffic, select that traffic, and then create a rule to allow it. For example, you sometimes see there is legitimate traffic being dropped, which is critical for a service. That's when actually you have to write it down, copy, a rule, etc. Why not just right click on it and select that link since that log will have the source destination report number? I would like to just right click, then have it pop up with a page where I can type the name of the rule to allow the traffic.

I started using Palo Alto in 2015.

It is very stable. We had two outages this year that were not good. They were related to OSPF bugs. Those bugs affected our service availability. 

It is quite scalable. I have been able to create a lot of zones to subinterfaces for a number of environments. I don't really have any issues regarding scalability. It meets my expectations.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls technical support is very poor. Three or four months ago, I had a bug where the database of the firewall was locked. You cannot do anything with it. We looked for documentation, giving us a procedure to follow, but the procedure didn't work. We logged a complaint with Palo Alto Networks, and they gave us an engineer. The engineer relied on documentation that doesn't work, and we had already tested. In the end, the engineer gave us an excuse, "No, we need this account to be able to unlock it." This happened twice. The way out of it was just to restart the firewall. You can restart the firewall and everything goes back to normal. Therefore, I think the support that we got was very poor.

Neutral

I have used Check Point and Cisco ASA.

Initially, when I started with Palo Alto, we had Cisco ASA, but Palo Alto Networks beat ASA hands down.

We have a multi-vendor environment with different providers. Our standard is that we can't have the same firewall for each parameter, so there is some kind of diversity. 

We had ASA looking at one side of the network and Palo Alto Networks looking at the other side of the network. We also had Juniper looking at another side of the network. At the end of the day, ASA was very good, I don't dispute that. However, in terms of functionality and user experience, Palo Alto Networks was better. 

Palo Alto Networks beat ASA because it was a next-generation firewall (NGFW), while ASA was not.

When we bought Palo Alto, we had Juniper devices in our environment. We were told that it was a bit like Juniper, so we were happy. However, some people were a bit skeptical and scared of Juniper firewalls. Because of that, it took us a very long time to put them on the network. However, as soon as we did the implementation, we realized that we were just thinking too much. It was not that difficult. 

We deployed Palo Alto Networks as part of a project for data center implementation. The implementation of the firewall didn't take long.

We buy through a third-party. Our account is managed by IBM.

We have seen ROI. There is more visibility in the environment in terms of security. There was a time when we suspected a security breach, and this firewall was able to give us all the logs that we expected. 

Palo Alto is like Mercedes-Benz. It is quite expensive, but the price is definitely justified.

One thing is system administration. In our opinion, Palo Alto administration is easier compared to other vendors. I know other vendors who have Check Point. You have to manage Check Point, and it is a bit cumbersome. It is a very nice, powerful firewall, but you need more knowledge to be able to manage Check Point compared to Palo Alto. Palo Alto is very straightforward and nice to use.

In our environment, troubleshooting has been easy. Anybody can leverage the Palo Alto traffic monitoring. In Cisco ASA and Check Point, you also have these capabilities, but capturing the traffic to see is one thing, while doing the interpretation is another thing. Palo Alto is more user-friendly and gives us a clearer interpretation of what is happening.

One thing that I don't like with Palo Alto is the command line. There isn't a lot of documentation for things like the command line. Most documents have a graphic user interface. Cisco has a lot of documents regarding command lines and how to maneuver their command line, as there are some things that we like to do with the command line instead of doing them with the graphic interface. Some things are easy to do on a graphic interface, but not in the command line. I should have the option to choose what I want to do and where, whether it is in the command line or a graphic interface. I think Palo Alto should try to make an effort in that aspect, as their documentation is quite poor.

We would rather use Cisco Umbrella for DNS security.

I compared the price of Palo Alto Networks with Juniper Networks firewall. The Juniper firewall is quite cheap. Also, Palo Alto Networks is a bit expensive compared to Cisco Firepower. Palo Alto Networks is in the same class of Check Point NGFW. Those two firewalls are a bit expensive.

It gives us visibility. In my opinion, the first firewall that I would put on our network is Palo Alto Network and the second would be Check Point.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a very good firewall. It is one of the best firewalls that I have used.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks as nine out of 10.

We use the solution to access clients.

I like the configuration of the product. The configuration is quite simple to understand. The product is easy to manage.

The solution has a lot of features. However, there are no deep configurations available. The functionalities are limited. Other products offer more customization.

I have been using the solution for the last five years.

The product is stable.

The product is currently being used by three of our customers. We provide them with dedicated VMs.

The local support is good. The response is slow when I try to reach out to technical support on the customer portal. It might be because the tickets I raised were P3 or P4 tickets. However, I do not get proper responses for P2 tickets either. I get a good response when I call support directly.

We also use FortiGate, Check Point, Forcepoint, and SonicWall. We use the tools based on our clients’ requirements.

The initial installation was easy. It was not difficult for me because I am familiar with many products.

The solution is worth the money. However, there are other tools that provide features similar to Palo Alto but are less expensive.

The solution’s cost is a little high compared to other products.

I will recommend the tool to others. It is a fine product. If someone is looking for DLP and other features, the product might not suit them. The product has good URL filtering features. Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to provide our clients with an internet gateway. 

The best feature is the packet inspection; compared to solutions like Cisco and FortiGate, Palo Alto's packet inspection is much less CPU intensive, allowing it to detect threats embedded within packages more quickly and efficiently. 

Palo Alto Networks NGFW provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities; it's easy to integrate with other platforms, and we never faced any issues doing so.  

Using Palo Alto Networks NGFW's unified platform, our clients have eliminated multiple network security tools and the effort needed to get them to work together.

The solution doesn't support routing in virtual firewall creation, and we want that to be enabled. 

We've been involved with Palo Alto Networks since 2008 and are a reseller, so we implement the solutions for our clients.

The solution is very stable; we don't have any problems with the stability. 

The product is very scalable. Most of our customers are enterprise-sized financial institutions with over 3,000 branches. 

Palo Alto Networks doesn't directly support Pakistan but rather through distributors. Out tickets go to the distributors, which are then forwarded to Palo Alto.

Neutral

The initial setup is very straightforward; we can complete it three to four hours after activating the licenses.

The product is expensive. With one being the cheapest and ten being the most expensive, I give it an eight.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

Palo Alto Networks NGFW is an excellent solution; 90% of the financial institutions in Pakistan use it as their ultimate gateway. 

People are just starting to get into machine learning in Pakistan, so we're not 100% sure of its capabilities and potential. I believe machine learning becomes more efficient in a cloud environment than a hybrid one, though I have yet to research this thoroughly.

To a colleague at another company who says they want the cheapest and fastest firewall, Palo Alto Networks provides an expensive solution, but you can't compromise on security. You can buy the most inexpensive firewall, but you'll have to purchase add-ons and subscriptions to enable a complete security infrastructure in your organization. One solution for every situation that doesn't require any additional services is a better choice. 

I advise those considering the solution to understand where they want to deploy it in the organization, as a broad installation is best for internet gateways. Next, the sensitivity of the data is important; for a financial institution like a bank, I recommend Palo Alto NGFWs because of the quality of the security and machine learning.