Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

We are a system and development company, and we sell this solution and many other solutions to our customers. 

We work on all the models, not a specific one. The model depends on the sizing. We also consider future expansion of a customer's environment for deploying a model.

In general, its performance and ease of use are the most valuable. Its performance is good, stable, and reliable. The user interface is friendly and easy to use. Customers find it easy to work with and easy to learn.

They can work on the price. They are a little bit expensive, and not all customers are able to afford this solution. Taking into consideration that there is huge competition in the market and there are multiple firewall companies that are much cheaper than them and offer almost the same features, it would be good to improve the price.

I have been using this solution for three to four years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. They offer multiple platforms, such as hardware appliances as well as virtual appliances. You can deploy as many virtual appliances as you want. Palo Alto supports the latest technologies, such as micro-segmentation, and NSX integration with Nutanix Acropolis Hypervisor. They offer multiple options to cover almost every deployment scenario and architecture for most of the customers.

I don't deal with the technical support team because I am a presales person. Our technical support team handles the tickets and open tickets for support.

The initial setup is not that easy. Deployment duration depends on the complexity of the solution, that is, how many firewalls will be installed, and are there any sorts of integrations or any other solution. It also depends if it is just a single box deployment or there is an extra box or two boxes. It might take one week to two weeks depending on the environment, the complexity of the data center, and the complexity of the integration with other technologies. It may take one month or more if the implementation is huge, and there are multiple boxes to be implemented and to be integrated with other solutions.

It is a little bit expensive.

I would recommend this solution based on a customer's requirements. I sell solutions from a lot of firewall vendors. I have the flexibility to recommend based on the budget of a project. I would recommend Palo Alto or any other vendor if the environment and all the conditions are available and suitable for that deployment. A lot of times, we make POC or proof of concepts to show the customer the value of the products and how to deal with them to convince them to buy it.

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

We are using it for data center protection, intrasystem security, endpoints protection, load balancing, and DHCP.

The App-ID, Content-ID, User-ID, and encryption and decryption are valuable features.

They can improve the handling and management of User-ID. They should also improve its price. Their technical support can also be improved.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is stable and reliable.

We went from 4 devices to 16 devices, and it was not a big problem. Currently, we don't have any plans to increase its usage. Our network won't grow over the next two years. It will stay as it is.

Their technical support is sometimes lousy, but sometimes, it is okay. Their technical support can be improved.

Its initial setup is not too complex for an environment like this.

Its price should be improved.

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

We are using this firewall for security purposes.

The most valuable features are the IPS/IDS subscriptions.

The user interface is fine.

In the future, I would like to see more OTP features.

The price of this product should be reduced.

We have been using the Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewall for more than two years.

In terms of stability, we have had a very good experience with this product. I would say that it is excellent.

Scalability has not been an issue. It's good.

The technical support from Palo Alto is good.

I was not present for the initial setup and deployment. Prior to that, I was not part of the planning.

My experience with Palo Alto is good and I definitely recommend this product. That said, there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a seven 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.

Our primary use case was for perimeter protection.

Innovative, advanced threat protection is the most valuable feature. 

I don't see any specific room for improvement.

The user interface is probably not as slick as it could be.

I have been using Palo Alto for three years. 

We're on-premises primarily at the moment, but also a cloud product. 

The stability is generally pretty good. I haven't heard any complaints from our customers around Palo Alto's stability. It's one of the reasons why they're the leaders in this space.

We've got our own team for maintenance. My company is a large multinational with 20,000 employees.

I have contacted their support once. It's very good support. They help me to fix our problem quickly.

The initial setup was complex. It's not very intuitive. You need to know what you're doing for the initial setup, you need to be a Palo Alto expert.

If you compare it to their competitor Fortinet, Fortinet's FortiGate product is a lot easier to install, if you're not an expert.

The time it takes to deploy depends on how complex the deployment needs to be for the client. If it's a basic deployment, is going to take around two days. 

My advice would be to make sure the firewall is configured properly.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. Not a ten because you have to be really excellent before you get a ten out of me.

In the next release, I would like to have the ability to auto-generate rule and policy, based on known traffic, based on the baseline. That is a feature that I think Palo Alto should be able to have in some form or fashion to auto-generate and propose a policy and rules set, after putting the file into a learning mode for some period.

We use this solution to protect our network.

This solution has helped our organization by protecting the perimeter of our network from both internal and external threats.

There are plenty of features available in this solution, such as attack blocker and spam blocker. Additionally, it is very robust and in-depth.

The solution is not straightforward.

I have been using this solution for approximately eight years.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is good. We have approximately 500 users using this solution in my company.

The initial setup was complex. The full installation, including customize to meet our requirements, took approximately one month.

We used the help from an integrator team for the implementation.

The technical support is satisfactory.

The price of the solution is on the higher side compared to competitors.

We are currently looking for a better-priced solution.

This is a very good solution but it is very expensive.

I rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a six 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.

I primarily use this solution for the core banking network. It's for core security. So it's to protect against intrusion, to protect against any kind of cyber attack that can happen to it. It protects our core infrastructure.

Mostly it's improved the security side. There was no security before, and we were looking for a solution that could give us the exact capacity to do all the configurations that we need, while also providing a high level of security. 

The app ID is very good.

The support needs improvement. Also, better reporting of errors would be good.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is not so good. Because if you want to upgrade, you have to change the service completely. We have about 2000 users.

It's a long wait time, although sometimes it's been quicker to get them. Occasionally, the type of answers provided are not so great.

We used to use Check Point, but we switched. It's because we found Palo Alto is better. Check Point is much slower, more expensive.

The initial setup was straightforward for us. We are technology oriented, so for us, it was straightforward. No complexities. For deployment, we needed about 5 people. Maintenance is only three people. Three engineers are looking after the books.

We did the implementation ourselves.

I would advise anyone to go ahead and understand exactly what they need. It's not because Palo Alto's cost is a little less. Depending on use, it's expensive. So they should understand the requirements first, before going with Palo Alto.

We previously had Check Point and eventually compared it with the Palo Alto screening, which proved that Palo Alto was the best. It was not a difficult choice.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. Generating reports is not so easy. I think with support, for everyone, and for all the bank company workers, they can do that a bit better. Then maybe I would rate them higher.