Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

Our use cases include combining multiple next-gen firewalls and bringing them into the Panorama centralized platform.

In general, it's one of the better firewall brands out there. It definitely has the investment and the dedication of the Palo Alto team to constantly improve their product and move forward. They're not a static company, like some of the other companies out there, and that's why I like them.

From a firewall perspective, there is a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, which is good because there is a single pane of glass. I don't have to go to every single firewall to look at certain things. I don't have to go to every single firewall to deploy rules. I can use Panorama to deploy the rules, so it's a one-stop job type of thing.

For securing data centers consistently across all workplaces, all next-gen firewalls pipe into the same Panorama centralized management solution. We can manage everything from a single pane of glass, deploy all that out, and make sure it goes through each firewall and updates correctly. That's huge. If you had to do it manually and you had thirty locations, that'd be like a day's job versus thirty minutes.

Having a centralized platform where they all feed into the Panorama solution significantly drops firewall-by-firewall management. We can use the Panorama solution to communicate with all of them.

I like the navigation of the general Panorama solution. I can easily navigate around and get to the thing I need. I'm not wasting time trying to find something.

Personally, I feel that their dashboards for reporting and things like that need some improvement.

We've been using Palo Alto for one to two years.

It has been very stable so far.

So far, it has been scalable enough to hit multiple divisions.

I have not personally contacted their support. That just dictates that they have a good product.

Positive

We also use Cisco firewalls.

I am not directly involved in its deployment, but I do help manage it. To my knowledge, the deployment was straightforward. It was easy to connect them into the Panorama platform.

There was a consultant. They knew their stuff.

There is typically no return on investment for firewalls because it's an IT cost, and we don't make money because we don't resell them.

It's pretty good.

We evaluated Fortinet and Check Point.

The value I receive from attending an RSA Conference is huge because I visit all my vendor partners to understand their roadmaps for the future. Attending an RSA Conference has had an impact on our organization’s cybersecurity purchases made throughout the year afterward because it brings out new features and subsets of the vendor partners. Also, if there is a deficiency in any of the current ones we currently use, we'll go engage other providers in order to find out if they can reach that gap or not, and then it'll dictate future proof of concepts and decisions.

Palo Alto embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention, but I personally haven't experienced that. It's a good thing that there hasn't been an attack where that became useful, but that's great to know.

As a result of our experience with Palo Alto NGFW, to a colleague at another company who says, “We are just looking for the cheapest and fastest Firewall,” I would say, "Go with Palo Alto."

Overall, I would rate Palo Alto NGFW an eight out of ten.

We chose Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to replace our outdated firewalls.

The overall security of the organization has been improved.

The most valuable aspect of this solution is pre-sales and post-sales because of the support and relationship building.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. 

The integration of all security capabilities in Palo Alto NG Firewalls provides a unified platform, which is crucial as it reduces complexity.

Having machine learning embedded in the core of the solution for in-line, real-time attack prevention is of great importance to us, it is a top priority. 

This is significant because it enables automation, reducing the number of man-hours needed.

When evaluating the ability of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to secure data centers consistently across all workplaces, I would give it a rating of eight out of ten.

By using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, we have been able to decrease our downtime by several hours per month.

The solution could be more cost-effective.

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

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a very stable solution.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are easily scalable.

We previously used Barracuda Networks.

We switched to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls after having a bad experience with our previous vendor for firewall solutions.

Palo Alto is more forward-thinking when compared to Barracuda.

I was involved in the initial setup. It was complex in multiple ways.

The solution itself is not a simple solution.

An integrator assisted us with the deployment.

They were helpful and knowledgeable.

I have experienced a return on investment with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. One benefit is that there are fewer man-hours required for deployment and maintenance.

That solution's pricing and/or licensing are very convoluted.

Based on my experience with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, if a colleague at another company said they were only looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would not recommend Palo Alto.

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

Attending an RSA conference provides high value and helps us to see the impact of our organization's cybersecurity purchases annually.

We primarily use the product for web browsing and in order to protect some sites that we are publishing to the web internet.

The solution is very helpful in controlling spam.

The product offers very good web content control and various aspects of security.

The stability of the product has been good over the years.

The initial setup is very easy. Compared to Cisco or other solutions, Palo Alto is very easy to implement and administer. They are both very easy.

I can't recall a feature that was missing. It's a pretty complete solution.

The cost of the device is very high.

To buy license support is very slow. For renewing devices and products, it's slow in terms of contacting and activating upgraded devices.

I've been using the solution for four years at this point. It's been a while. We've been using it over the last 12 months as well.

The stability is excellent. It's reliable. We don't deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Overall, it's been very good in terms of performance.

We have not proven the scalability yet. We're planning to extend our office within the next year or six months to eight months. We are buying some appliances for the process of extending our office.

Currently, around 1,000 people use this solution.

We've never been in touch with technical support. Having never dealt with them, I wouldn't be able to speak to how they are in terms of services.

We also use Barracuda and Cisco for certain aspects of security.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's quite easy to implement.

The deployment takes about one week, or maybe a bit less, depending on the requirements. That includes both implementing and training.

Currently, two people are required for deployment and maintenance of the product

We implement the solution with our network team. We implement the solution ourselves. We don't need the help of integrators or consultants.

The pricing is quite high on Palo Alto.

On the lower end, it's likely to cost $15,000 for renovation and support.

We evaluated Cisco, Juniper, and Dell among other solutions before ultimately choosing this solution. Cisco can be complex in terms of device management compared to other options, for example. Cisco can be cheaper than Palo Alto, but that is not always the case.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. We use a physical appliance.

We're using three different models, for the most part.

My company is an outsourcing company that deploys software and testing.

The solution is very user-friendly and easy to manage and administrate. For that reason, I would rate the product at a nine out of ten.

We use it for LAN users, internet access, and more. The NG Firewall has many functions like user control, access control for servers, natural controls based on applications, schedules, ports, RTs, and IPS functionality with antivirus or security functionality. We also use it to control internet access, traffic shaping for bandwidth control, and fraud prevention.

I like all the functions and features.

I think automation and machine learning can be improved to make bulk configurations simpler, easier, and faster. Scalability can also be better.

I've been working with NG Firewalls for six years.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a stable solution.

I don't think Palo Alto and Fortinet firewalls are scalable. Only Cisco is scalable. For clustering, Cisco activity models like the 4000 model are better. For example, if the firewall is undersized due to expansion, you can cluster and add more appliances to the system.

I think Palo Alto has good support. Technical support helped me solve most of my issues very quickly. 

The initial setup depends on the client's infrastructure and the project's scope. 

If it's migration, Palo Alto has a great tool called the Expedition tool. It helps to migrate any firewall to the Palo Alto firewall. This process takes about a day, and it's very simple.

If it's a fresh installation, it depends on the number of policies you need to apply and the number of metrics. You can do it using the command line. You can do it easily and quickly, but it depends on how much the customers prepare. Sometimes the customer has no information to provide, and you struggle to get this information. Sometimes this process can take two to five days or take weeks. 

We implement and maintain Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for our customers.

Paul Alto is the most expensive solution in this category. The subscriptions and support are also expensive, but everything is included in the hardware, including the subscriptions.

If a customer is price-sensitive, I will go for Fortinet without a second thought. If customers are willing to invest in their data centers, I might go with Palo Alto and Cisco.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a ten.

I use NG Firewalls for perimeter defense. 

We've seen better throughput compared to our previous firewall. End-users are happier with their connections through Palo Alto. 

Palo Alto offers better Layer 7 protection than competing solutions by Cisco and Fortinet. I also like the VPN client more. The interface is simple, so administrators can deploy and configure it much faster than other firewalls. The interoperability with other vendors is excellent. We can connect Palo Alto firewalls to all our other solutions. 

I would like to see more artificial intelligence. However, that is going beyond firewalls to products like Prisma. Palo Alto has those features in an entirely different ecosystem. It isn't a problem. Machine learning is valuable, but I rely more on threat intel. 

I have been using Palo Alto's solutions since 2014.

I rate Palo Alto NG Firewalls a nine out of ten for stability. We have had zero downtime except for scheduled maintenance. The firewalls are in a cluster that never goes down.

The scalability is excellent because you can always purchase a bigger firewall as you grow. 

I rate Palo Alto's support a seven out of ten. It is good overall but worse in some regions. The first level of support will usually do nothing for you. If you're an IT company, you're not looking for level-one support. You need to escalate. Other vendors have a direct support line for enterprise clients, but not Palo Alto.

Neutral

Palo Alto has a better interface and integration with other solutions than competing vendors. The only drawback is the price. Go with FortiGate if you're looking for a firewall that is cheap and decent. If you can't afford Palo Alto, FortiGate is the next cheapest. 

We can deploy Palo Alto firewalls faster and easier than most other solutions. We assess the traffic, buy the appropriate size, and implement it. 

Palo Alto firewalls are expensive, but they're worth what we pay. 

I rate Palo Alto NG Firewalls a nine out of ten. Technical support has some room for improvement, and there are several minor issues that aren't worth mentioning. 

We use this firewall as part of our overall security solution. It is used to protect our perimeter on the internet side. We have the on-premises version installed for our offices and the cloud-based version for our cloud offerings. For our cloud setup, we use both Azure and AWS.

The most valuable feature is the security provided by the ATP. It is definitely better than the security provided by other firewalls.

The API is available for integration with tools for automation and AI, which is very good.

The interface contains some decentralized tools, so simplifying it would be an improvement.

I would like the option to be able to block the traffic from a specific country in a few clicks.

Some of the implements under artificial intelligence should provide better visibility in terms of my traffic, such as where it originates and where it is going.

Better integration with industry tools would allow me to do quicker automation and reduce my operational costs.

We have been using the Palo Alto Next-Generation firewall for almost five years.

This solution is definitely not scalable. Although it is a next-generation firewall, it has its limitations in terms of policies. At one point in time, it becomes the bottleneck, which is something that we have to optimize.

We are using this firewall at between 10 and 15 locations.

We have been in contact with technical support and we are satisfied with the service.

We also use FortiGate VDOM, although this is for internal protection. The FortiGate interface is simpler in design than Palo Alto.

Prior to Palo Alto, we were using the Cisco ASA platform. When it was through with its lifecycle, we switched. Seeing the next-generation firewall competition in the market, Cisco definitely has a larger portfolio, but it is not as competitive in the security domain. Solutions from Palo Alto and Fortinet are better in this space.

It is easy to install and we did not find the initial setup complex at all. The basic firewall can be set up, and then it takes a little time for the hardening. In total, the deployment can usually be completed within two or three hours.

The pricing is competitive in the market.

Palo Alto NG is definitely a firewall that I recommend for the right size of deployment.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for security purposes.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls enable efficient application search, viewing, and configuration access across various services for different user groups within our company.     

The only downside of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, in my opinion, is the relatively higher price compared to Cisco FortiGate. This is especially noticeable when deploying basic configurations and considering the cost of licenses.

I have used the solution for the past few years.

In terms of stability, the user rates it a nine out of ten.

I would rate it 10 out of 10. The current user base for Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls in the environment is one thousand users. Plans are in place to increase usage in the future, particularly with the intention to upgrade for higher speed.

The experience with tech support is positiveand they have found support helpful in addressing network issues.

Positive

Before adopting Palo Alto NG Firewalls, no other tools were used.

I cannot rate the ease of configuration on a scale from one to ten for Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. The configurations are diverse, and it's challenging to determine a specific rating, but I find them somewhat similar and not particularly helpful.So, the deployment process for Palo Alto NG Firewalls takes about one month. This duration is due to the various steps involved in the deployment, each of which can be completed within a business day. The complexity arises from the need to connect with numerous clients and services, considering the continuous operation of the business.

In terms of price, the user finds it expensive, rating it around nine.

The overall recommendation is positive, emphasizing ease of deployment, understanding features, and suitability for the company's needs. I give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a perfect rating of ten.

We use it for our edge firewalls and our east-west and north-south traffic for our firewalls. We have also deployed each firewall to every site for our Layer 3 connections back to our data center.

Since we've integrated it into our east-west traffic and north-south traffic, I feel that it has reduced the number of viruses or other things in our endpoints. I wish to expand it more all the way to our endpoint computers so that we have end-to-end firewall security through Palo Alto.

It provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. This is very important to me because I'm in IT infrastructure. I take care of the entire operations network and everything that flows north and south, east and west, and inside and out of our data center. It's very important that we have Palo Alto to protect us.

It embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. When any packet comes through the network, everything is like a first pass. It goes through every single part of our network, and we don't have a delay in alerts or network security. It stops any attack on the line.

I like all the threat alerts and WildFire. I also like scanning because everything that comes into our network via customers is scanned. We're an electric company, so every one of the bills is scanned and emailed in and out of our network. 

I like the reports, but I wish the reporting was a little better. When I set up the automatic reports to come in, they're pretty basic. I would like them to be a little more advanced at the ACC monitoring and things like that. I still enjoy all the daily alerts that I get and all the daily PDFs and reports, but I just feel that it could expand upon the visualization of the reports.

I've been using this solution for seven years.

The stability is great. They're not going anywhere. They're the industry leader.

It doesn't matter whether you are small or large, Palo Alto will fit your needs.

I'm in Pacific Standard Time. During the day, I have great support, and after 5:30, I don't have great support. During my business hours, I would rate their support as a ten out of ten. I love Palo Alto's support. However, at night, when the sun changes and I go to a different area, it's not always the best at level 1. If the incident was like having a system down, the support would be better, but after hours or 5:30, I have a harder time.

We were using Cisco ASA. We switched because of its ease to use and the GUI. There is also Single Pass Architecture, which is related to the way a packet flows through our network. It doesn't have to go through one area into another area. It's all at one, and it just separates. It gives me the best visibility of our network and firewalls.

It has decreased the time of technicians in researching the vulnerabilities. We also do web filtering, so that helps. Web filtering has changed things because we used to use Websense, and it's night and day.

It's very expensive. However, we usually use all of the subscriptions and threat alerts on any firewall that uses the internet. For each edge security endpoint, we use all subscriptions. Otherwise, we just utilize the threat alert, the antivirus, WildFire, etc.

Palo Alto is the best firewall company. Whether you're a small company or a large company, it will fit your needs.

By attending this RSA Conference, I was hoping to find new security solutions. However, I seem to like my existing Palo Alto security solutions. In terms of the impact of the RSA Conference on our organization’s cybersecurity purchases, it depends on what we're looking for at the time of attending an RSA Conference. Right now, we're looking for something that I didn't really see here. We're looking for security, but this means we need a security operations center (SOC), whereas we're small. We just don't have that type of network. This is almost too much. However, that's why we have Palo Alto Networks.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. Palo Alto is the best firewall security network that I could possibly purchase.