Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

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.

I like the architecture because it separates the management plan process and the data plan process. When I perform something CPU-intensive on management configurations, it doesn't disturb the data plan.

On the data plan, it uses parallel processing. This makes the security process and network process is more efficient.

I think visibility can be improved. If I use the Panorama monitoring dashboard, it's still the same with or without Panorama. Even with monitoring, we don't get any valuable information. 

If I am a customer, I will take many variables into considerations. If I choose to use Panorama, there should be a difference between when I use it and when I'm not. If I'm a customer who paid for Panorama even when I have many firewalls, I won't get good visibility of the information I need to easily monitor our security environment.

My customers have been attacked by ransomware. It's difficult to understand how the ransomware got through Palo Alto Panorama and Palo Alto dashboard monitoring from reporting. It makes it difficult to conclude what happened on the traffic which passed through Palo Alto. As such, I have to generate an all block report CSV file and analyze it through Excel.

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

On performance and stability, I've never heard any complaints. The product is running well and easily maintained by an admin.

I think scalability's the same as any other firewall. If we look to scale five years later, it will be scalable to perform the change. This model on Palo Alto makes it easy to add a new network, so Palo Alto offers more scalability.

Technical support is still not good for me.

The initial setup is so simple. We just needed to make a password and make it a point to point connection. I think it's that simple; make a point to point connection, access the web UI, perform initial configuration so the firewall can be managed through the network, and then we can manage everything through the web UI.

The device is very expensive compared to Cisco and Fortinet. But many of my customers use Palo Alto as Palo Alto is the standard of their organization.

I'd tell potential users of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls that their decision depends on their budget. If you have an adequate budget, then I recommend Palo Alto. If you have a limited budget, you need to consider your needs and look at Cisco ASA's price and Fortinet's price.

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

We are a solution provider and this is one of the firewalls that we implement for our clients.

This is a difficult product to manage, so the administrator needs to have a good knowledge of it, otherwise, they will not be able to handle it properly.

The scalability is very good.

We have a small number of clients with this solution in place.

The support is good.

I have experience with multiple firewall vendors and I have seen that products from other vendors have bugs. My feeling is that Palo Alto does not have this problem.

Some of the vendors that I have worked with are Fortinet and Sophos. The setup and management of these products are easy compared to Palo Alto.

Implementing this product can be a little bit difficult. The configuration is difficult compared to other products, so it would be nice if there were videos are other instructions available. It can be very time consuming for the network administrator.

The pricing is very high.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this firewall is to follow the guide or instructions that are available. There are multiple resources and examples of use cases available on the Palo Alto website, and you can directly follow them.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I deploy this solution for our clients. Firewalls can be used when you want to achieve SD-WAN connectivity. In a client's VPN or site-to-site VPN, it can be used to secure networks locally. If you have an extender or server room, you can secure your IT infrastructure for your servers. The solution can be installed on edge to protect your internal network. If you have services running on AWS or Google Cloud, or Alibaba Cloud, it can be deployed there. Some clients have a hybrid kind of infrastructure. I'm a service delivery engineer and network security lead and we are customers of Palo Alto. 

It's a flexible solution and integrates well with apps and other security tools like SIEM, web applications. They can share their data orchestration. It's robust and fast in terms of architecture and data processing, there aren't any bottlenecks.  

The interface could be improved visually and simplified. It sometimes feels like some of the features are hidden and not easy to find. 

This is a very stable solution. 

In terms of technical support, I've noticed that as long as you have an enterprise license the support is good. 

For a beginner, the initial setup might be somewhat complex because the interface is a bit different, so there's a learning curve. It's not that steep, and once you get it, it's okay. In terms of other solutions, the Palo Alto deployment takes longer than Fortinet, for example, because of the intricacy of the user interface. In a medium size organization, deployment can take three to four days. 

I would recommend this solution. The uptake is mostly with medium and large enterprise, it's strong there. For small to medium size businesses, the preference is usually Fortinet or Sophos. It's really about what suits the client. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We primarily use this product to protect our network.

The most valuable feature is the application firewall.

The GUI is user-friendly.

The way that the roles are made, specifically with how you specify the path, could be simpler.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for one year.

We used the product on a daily basis and have had no critical issues so far.

We have hundreds of users in the company and have not tried scaling it.

With regards to support, they have a lot of things to improve.

We also use Check Point as a firewall. Both have their advantages but for my part, Palo Alto is better because of the way it handles applications. Check Point is better if you are only using ports and TCP/IP.

The initial setup is of medium difficulty. It is not simple yet not complex.

We implement in-house with some assistance from the vendor. It took a few hours to deploy.

Palo Alto is more affordable than some competing products, such as Check Point.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this product as our perimeter firewall.

We have a lot of confidence in this solution.

The management options are good.

There are some options available in other firewall products that are not supported, so there is room for improvement in that regard.

Technical support could be faster.

The cost of this firewall could be cheaper.

We have been using the Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall for the past five years.

This is a stable product.

This next-generation firewall solution is scalable. We have more than 500 users and we plan to continue using it.

We have had experience with technical support and it is good, although they could be faster.

Our previous firewall did not have the next-generation capability.

The initial setup is straightforward. A typical installation takes one or two days.

We deployed this product on our own and one person is suitable for the deployment.

This is an expensive product and there is a subscription cost.

This is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.