Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

I am currently testing Palo Alto and preparing for an exam.

The Global Protect Feature has allowed our organization to support our remote workforce. 

I have found it to be reliable and very easy to use. I haven't really encountered many problems with it because its documentation is clear and readily available on their website.

They need to provide documentation for CLI, as most of the commands, we get from Community Forums.

I have been doing research on Palo Alto for the past nine months.

It is stable.

Highly scalable as the HA deployment allows you to pair up to eight devices at once. 

I haven't had a chance to contact them.

Palo Alto is my first solution.

Initial setup is easy and subsequent changes have been easy to implement as well. 

In-house expertise. 

Sophos XG.

I would say go for it because it seems to be stable and very reliable. I've spoken to some specialists who vouch for Palo Alto. They say they've been using it in their environment, and it hasn't let them down so far.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

It protects from any unwanted traffic or any kind of attack toward your LAN. It just minimizes the risk. It does not completely eradicate the risk.

We have the latest version of this solution.

Application control, IPS, and sandboxing towards the cloud are the most valuable features. It is a very user-friendly product with a very easy-to-use interface.

Its stability can be better. Their technical response from the support side can also be better.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

It is stable, but its stability can be better.

If you got the product for 100 users and the company has grown to 500 people, this product will not be scalable. You will need another hardware that has more resources.

Their technical support is very good, but their technical response can be better. You might face some difficulties due to COVID, but they have been very good most of the time. It also depends on the region from where you are calling.

It is very much straightforward. It is a friendly product, but one should have basic knowledge of networking and security.

The deployment duration and the number of people required vary based on the requirements. A security product doesn't work in a way where you just install it, and it starts functioning. You need to keep improvising and updating it. It is an ongoing process for all security products.

You pay based on the kind of license you require, but comparatively, it is not very expensive.

I would recommend this solution to others. If you have internet, you should definitely have a firewall in your network. When you're exposed to the internet, you're exposed to risks. You definitely need a next-generation firewall in corporate networks.

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

We've put it in hospitals and very large private and government businesses. We have its latest version.

URL filtering and WildFire features are most valuable. It is very user-friendly. 

It is a very solid product, and it definitely works.

In the cloud, the HA could be a lot better. 

Its price could also be better. It is very expensive.

I have been using this solution for about seven years.

It is very reliable.

Its scalability is very good. We have hundreds of customers.

Their support is very good.

It was pretty straightforward.

It is very expensive. You pay for a year.

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

We use it for perimeter security.

Overall, it is a good solution. It is stable. We use URL filtering, which is useful for blocking undesired URLs.

Currently, they don't have email protection. They can maybe add it in the future. Currently, if you want to do so, you need to go with another solution.

I have been using this solution for two years.

Its stability is perfect. It has excellent stability.

With this kind of solution, you need to be careful in terms of planning because once you have the appliance, it is very difficult to scale too much. You need to carefully select the right appliances because if you need to run more services and traffic beyond the ones you have selected, you would have to replace the appliance. You would have to upgrade it. We currently have 100 users in our organization who use this solution.

We never had the need to open a support case. It never happened that something that was supposed to work was not working. If required, we can find the answers in the product documentation.

If you have the right experience, it is okay. It is not very easy, but if you know how to manage it and configure it, it is okay. It takes maybe 5 to 10 hours or a day.

I would advise others to go for it. They will not get disappointed. It is complex at the beginning because it has a lot of features, but this is something that you overcome with training. With training and experience, you can manage it.

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

We shifted an existing network from Cisco to Palo Alto. It was like a branch to head office network.

We have done public and private cloud deployments as well as on-prem deployments. We are using versions 8, 9, and 10.

IoT security is most valuable in the current version. Content IDs, DDoS protection, zone protection, and DLP are the most prominent features in Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall. It is easier to configure than other solutions.

People sometimes find it more expensive as compared to other solutions. There are also fewer training opportunities for Palo Alto than Cisco and other vendors.

I have been using this solution for the last four or five years.

It is working fine.

Its scalability has been fine for our use cases. It is good for large-scale environments, and there are no problems.

Their technical support is excellent. 

It is very straightforward. They also have a very good script, so it runs very smoothly.

It is expensive as compared to other brands.

If we are comparing firewalls, this is the best firewall. I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall a nine out of ten.

We have several use cases for this solution. They include anti-virus, user identification, two-factor authentication for VPN, and application filtering.

The configuration is very simple. 

An additional feature that should be included in the next release is spam filtering. 

I've been using PA-220 Next-Generation Firewall for over a year. 

PA-220 Next-Generation Firewall is a stable solution. 

We only contacted technical support when we were trying to make a sales configuration for the environment here. We had some integration questions for technical support. Of course, we got the answers we needed. The Palo Alto tech support got back to us quickly. 

The price for Palo Alto solutions is very high. It should be a bit lower. 

We use these firewalls on-premise. We use them as a central gateway for internet security. We also use them for organizing access to the internet from organizations, and security access rules.

We have found the DPI ability to understand web applications and build access rules on web application categories first to be a great feature. The firewalls have good integration and good log journals' integration with Qradar. This is how the system produces user logs, how they build, how they structure the logs is stable to integrate with SIEM. For example, Check Point is not so good in this category.

They could improve their support and pricing and maybe integration. It's a little more expensive than Check Point but the quality is better. Integration with firewall endpoints could be better. Palo Alto does have very good malware or antivirus protection. I think they could improve on that front.

We have been using the Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls for about 12 months. We are using the latest version.

We have found Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls to be a very stable solution and very convenient solution.

We don't have any problems with the performance. It works very good. We have not had any problems. If we compare with Check Point, Check Point is not really good in stability, not for monitoring. That is why we didn't choose Check Point to move to Palo Alto.

We are satisfied with Palo Alto's support. We don't need to contact them frequently but when we do it is a good experience.

If we compare with Check Point, Check Point is not really good in stability, not for monitoring. That is why we didn't choose Check Point to move to Palo Alto. Compared with Check Point, it's excellent. It's very good. It's even better than Cisco also. So for this kind of usage scenario, it's very good. We don't use it as a regular firewall or perimeter firewall. We use it only as an internet gateway. But for an internet gateway, it's very good.

It was a very straightforward install and we were able to perform it from the Palo Alto books available. It only took one or two days for the installation. No problem with SIEM integrations or with the security policies. It's just worked as expected.

We performed the installation in house from the Palo Alto books available. 

I would give Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls a rating of nine on a scale of ten.

We use a very basic model with a small installation to secure a small office segment with 50 users.

Operationally, it is easier, and the manageability and their security features are good. Vendor support is also good.

When it comes to their support, we have to select every single component that we want to include in a particular bundle. That is a very tedious process. The vendor will help us identify the product and the features, but it could be better. The price could also be better.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for about four years.

Vendor support is good.

Compared to other solutions, it's very expensive to set up and maintain.

I would tell potential users that Palo Alto is the best, even compared to Cisco or any other competitor. 

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