Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

We use the solution to protect our network environment. We use three versions: 230, 440, and 820. 

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embed machine learning into the core of the firewall to provide real-time attack prevention, which is wonderful.

We check the machine learning logs to secure our networks against threats that are able to evolve more rapidly. 

I find the solution to be comfortable and easy to use. While I cannot completely authenticate my devices, I am able to distinguish between private devices and use them for authentication in some way, which is very helpful. The URL filtering feature is also helpful and I am very satisfied with the firewall delivery.

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

I give the solution's single-pass architecture for performance and security an eight out of ten.

There are many valuable features within the solution. This includes security, a user-friendly firewall, antivirus, and global protection.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' documentation, features, and user-friendliness are excellent.

The VPN has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for two and a half years.

For the most part, the stability is good but we sometimes face problems with the VPN connections.

The solution is scalable. We have 150 people that use the solution.

We often don't have to open a ticket as the documentation provided is usually comprehensive, and we can usually resolve most issues on our own. The one time I submitted a ticket, the technical support was not able to resolve the issue.

Positive

I previously used Forcepoint Next-Generation Firewall which is cheaper than Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls but I prefer Palo Alto because it is user-friendly and supports more devices and features. 

I was not involved in the initial setup but I did migrate the 820 to the 440 and it was straightforward. The migration took a few hours.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are expensive.

There is an additional cost for support.

I give the solution nine out of ten.

The maintenance consists of regular updates only.

Currently, we do not use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls across our entire network but we have plans to extend them in the future.

I recommend Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to others.

I use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to handle my perimeter security, which is the most critical point of my network.

Layer 3 and Layer 4 are part of the core functionality of any firewall, but this firewall brings more information into the inspection via Layer 7. Thus, the entire threat landscape has changed for us as a company.

We can integrate all the Palo Alto firewalls to have a single insight experience across all firewalls.

On a major scale, Palo Alto NGFW can be helpful in eliminating some security tools. It doesn't eliminate all of our other security tools, but it does bring down the dependency on some tools.

Security and network performance are of equal importance to us. This solution doesn't compromise your network's performance for security, which is a good trade-off.

The most valuable features are application inspection and sandboxing. Application inspection decides where traffic is transmitted. If I have a perimeter report for a particular service, then other services or malicious services cannot use an open port. In this way, application inspection is doing a fantastic job. We also have a very good sandbox with almost no rate limit. It will inspect any file that comes in and goes out in a dedicated patch to identify malware. Therefore, these two things help me to protect our organization from any bad actors.

It is extremely important for me that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. The way that they handle the traffic is very useful for us. The firewall creates a benchmark of known traffic patterns that every endpoint would have using machine learning. Machine learning creates a baseline of how the traffic goes in and out. When there is a deviation in the normal behavior, it gives me a threat indication via a reporting feature that shows us how the current traffic has deviated from the usual traffic. This is a very good feature, which is important for my organization to have on a daily basis.

It gives me a better experience when handling security holes. 

Our upgrades brought some rule reviewing features by default, without having to depend on third-party tools to perform the rule reviewing. That has been a good feature.

I would like them to bring in some features that would encourage traffic shaping or bandwidth routing, like other UTM firewalls, because the solution should be capable of limiting the bandwidth for rules.

If Palo Alto Networks could bring in session tracking, like FortiGate, then we can remove another cybersecurity tool. If they could say "This is user-based, not IP-based," using user attribute-based rules, then that would be helpful for a small- or medium-scale company because they could use a single device instead of two or three devices.

I have been using it for four years.

The stability is very good. After the upgrade, every other process was smoother. We haven't often seen bugs or operational hazards in terms of the device. 

Scalability is always available. If you are ready to invest the money, then you can add another box. Every device has its limitations though. NGFW has its own limitations, where it cannot scale beyond a certain point. Those limitations have already been published and users need to be aware of them when they are planning to buy a firewall.

The size of my environment is 3,000 to 4,000 users. We are a larger organization with 60 to 80 VLANs. There are approximately 3,600 endpoints accessing them. Day in, day out, we have a lot of network access change requests coming in that need to be performed. 

In terms of maintaining the firewalls for our space and cost, there are about 15 team members. It is a huge environment with 10 different clusters of Palo Altos. From our operational perspective, we need 15 team members.

On a practical scale, it depends on the size of your organization. If it is a small organization, I think two to three members should be sufficient enough to handle the solution. When you have a smaller organization with a maximum of 20 different VLANs, where there is a size limit of 50 to 100 users/employees, then two or three members would be sufficient enough to handle it. However, it all depends upon the number of endpoints that are the nodes and how many nodes the firewall is protecting.

The technical support is good. I would rate them as 10 out of 10. 

They are able to support me and the issues that have arisen, which have been very minimal. For cases where we break something in the configuration or any bug that is out of control, they are good in understanding and analyzing our issues as well as providing a solution for them. That is why I rated them as 10.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward, not complex. We migrated from a different vendor to this platform. We had our goals and objectives in front of us. So, we had a good project plan before migrating everything.

I have multiple clusters. For the largest cluster, the migration took three to four weeks.

We used an integrator for the deployment.

We are monitoring the metrics. We have certain metrics to find ROI, e.g., it could be zero-days, the number of inclusions that this solution has blocked successfully, or the amount of malware that it has stopped. We identify this information via the sandboxing feature, which determines what other normal firewalls would have let in. We consider the amount of data that we process and the regulatory fines that would have arisen, if not for this solution. That is how our return of investment is calculated.

If the cost is your main priority, Palo Alto would be a bit high. However, if you are ready to hear about return of investment, then I would convince you to go for Palo Alto.

I am using three or four firewalls from different vendors. I know their capabilities as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each vendor. 

We have evaluated different firewalls and found Palo Alto best suited for boundary networks. Fortinet handles our user-facing firewalls. Between FortiGate and Palo Alto, there is Cisco.

We did a SWOT analysis on all the firewalls. We determined the best firewalls based on their throughput and protection suites. For example, a user-facing firewall doesn't need to be jam-packed with security features. However, a perimeter firewall is between the trusted and untrusted networks, so more security features are needed.

We are using a different DNS Security solution, so we haven't used Palo Alto NGFW’s DNS Security.

Explore the features that the solution offers. There are a lot. If you can use the features to their fullest potential, that would be best. 

If you are just doing an L3 and L4 inspection, then Palo Alto Networks might not be best suited for that environment. If you are going to use the features of an NGFW, then I would tell you about the solution's features and return of investment based on what you are protecting. 

We use Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls daily to create firewall rules that permit network traffic for specific applications and end users.

We use various models, including the 800, 400, and 3200 series. The specific model required depends on the size of the remote site where it will be deployed.

Embedded machine learning is crucial because hackers increasingly leverage AI to develop innovative methods of infiltrating networks. AI enables them to create more sophisticated malware and threats, intensifying the arms race between defenders and attackers. To counter this evolving threat landscape, next-generation firewalls must incorporate AI and machine learning capabilities to analyze and mitigate threats effectively.

AI and machine learning are valuable aspects.

UTM solutions like those offered by CheckPoint and Fortinet all offer a single pane of glass for managing security. Palo Alto is the same, but as a newcomer to Palo Alto, I've found its management, particularly with Panorama overseeing our hundred firewalls, challenging. Pushing changes, especially to individual firewalls, often results in failures, requiring full system updates. This inconsistency creates significant hurdles. While I suspect similar complexities exist in Cisco Firepower and potentially Fortinet, Palo Alto's implementation seems unnecessarily convoluted.

Palo Alto claims their NG Firewalls are highly customizable, but this isn't always true. We've encountered an issue where changes to a firewall cannot be reverted. Unlike Cisco Firepower or ASA, where changes are only committed after saving, Palo Alto commits changes immediately and places them in a queue. This prevents reverting changes, even accidentally made ones. For instance, today I was testing firewall rules without intending to push them, but the changes were already committed to the locally managed Panorama server. This lack of control is a significant drawback compared to vendors like Cisco or Checkpoint, where uncommitted changes are not saved.

Executives often praise Palo Alto firewalls, but these same executives rarely have hands-on experience managing them. Unlike them, I deal with the daily complexities of firewall operations. While every firewall has its shortcomings, Palo Alto is no exception. Cisco's ASA, for instance, was frustrating to manage through its ASDM interface, but the CLI configuration was reliable. Unfortunately, other vendors like Checkpoint and Fortinet heavily rely on management servers, limiting CLI options. Pushing changes can be a nightmare with any firewall, often involving unnecessary whole pushes due to errors or version mismatches. Palo Alto is no different; it's prone to bugs and challenges like any other product. Contrary to popular belief, executives who lack firsthand experience with firewall management often exaggerate Palo Alto's strengths.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have been problematic. Due to failed configuration pushes, I've encountered issues requiring Palo Alto Technical Assistance Center involvement. Based on DNS hostnames, objects are supposed to be automatically resolved by Palo Alto, but this functionality proved unreliable, necessitating a firewall upgrade and patch to correct a bug. Contrary to claims, Palo Alto has not exceeded expectations; managing as other firewall brands has been as frustrating. Each firewall platform has complexities, but I don't believe Palo Alto surpasses Check Point, Fortinet, or Cisco Firepower. While it might have advantages over Cisco Firepower, when compared to Check Point or Fortinet, Palo Alto does not offer greater performance.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for nine months.

When installing a Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall, we connect it to the network via a management interface and configure basic settings. Next, we register the firewall with Panorama, its management server, and then plan the network transition.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are overpriced. While Fortinet offers a more affordable option, Palo Alto commands premium prices due to its strong brand reputation among CISOs and security executives. Despite this, I believe Palo Alto firewalls are overhyped and underperform expectations. Many of these executives, who lack hands-on firewall management experience, base their decisions on marketing claims rather than practical knowledge. In contrast, Check Point pioneered next-generation firewalls, offering advanced features before competitors. However, its reliance on a centralized management system limited flexibility. Cisco, while improving, has also moved towards centralized management, restricting CLI access. Ultimately, I prefer the balance of features and flexibility Check Point offers.

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

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls as a gateway for our data center and server files because they are a reliable and robust device, and the best in the security field. We also use their threat intelligence and threat protection services, which are like brass fittings.

Palo Alto enables telemetry and enriches their systems to protect our network against threats, which is why machine learning helps us secure our network.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have enhanced our security by around 20 percent.

The solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all of our security capabilities.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls help eliminate security holes by stopping all the known and unknown vulnerabilities that we are seeing in our network.

The single-path architecture has improved performance and latency.

The application awareness feature that recognizes application IDs and vulnerability protection are Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' most valuable features.

The price is high and has room for improvement.

We have Elite Plus partner support, which means we always have to speak to a partner to open a case. However, not all of the partners are knowledgeable or helpful.

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

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are stable.

When it comes to virtual machine editions or the cloud, I think they are more scalable than hardware. 

We have three administrators, 1,000 end users, and up to 400 servers that use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

We previously used Fortinet FortiGate firewalls but switched to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for their superior performance. We also chose Palo Alto Networks because Gartner's reviews of their firewalls have consistently been better than those of Fortinet.

The initial setup is straightforward. However, enabling the security features and starting traffic inspection can be complex. The physical installation is easy.

The deployment for one device takes one day.

We have seen a return on investment in the two years that we have been using the solution.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' price is expensive.

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

I recommend Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. 

We use this solution to protect the perimeter and use it as a proxy for the servers.

We have the firewalls installed in our data center at present and are planning to put them in the corporate and branch offices as well.

A couple of years ago, we removed the explicit proxy for the servers and made the proxy transparent for the servers. We were able to make it softer for the servers' web filtering.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. They have a couple of solutions in the cloud that we are trying to add to our ecosystem.

Because Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are installed in our data center, it is very important that Palo Alto embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. We need to protect our servers.

The cloud could be improved. I would like to have more visibility of the network vulnerabilities as well.

I've been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for more than five years.

The stability is good.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have good scalability.

Palo Alto's technical support is good, and I would rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

Overall, I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine on a scale from one to ten.

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for security purposes and to mitigate risk.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls enabled us to have better visibility overall.

The inline, real-time attack prevention provided by embedded machine learning is not bad.

Also, the firewalls are moderate in terms of securing data centers consistently across all workplaces, i.e., from the smallest office to the largest data centers.

We have been able to reduce downtime because we have better visibility. We're faster and can act preemptively.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls do not provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities.

Customer support could be improved.

I've been using this solution for about one year.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are stable.

The firewalls' scalability is good.

I would rate Palo Alto's network support a six out of ten.

Neutral

We have seen a slight ROI, enough to justify the cost of the solution.

The cost is steep, but most firewalls cost a lot.

If you're looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would not recommend Palo Alto NG Firewalls.

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

I place a high value on attending the RSA Conference. I get a lot out of it because I'm able to learn about up-and-coming companies. I can see what options are available, whether someone's doing it better, and if I can get a cheaper option.

Attending RSAC does have an impact on my organization’s cybersecurity purchases made throughout the year.

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for our network security. We deployed the solution on both the cloud and on-prem.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls machine learning secures our network against threats that evolve rapidly.

The DNS security feature is already commonly used for authentication by clients, with many threats being pushed from the inside to the outside. DNS security helps improve our network.

The DNS security feature is integral in protecting against DNS tunneling.

The solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' unified platform helps us eliminate security threats. We use all the Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' features including the UTM, WiFi, and VPN feature to protect our network. 

Both the network performance and security of the single-pass architecture are good. 

There are many valuable features, such as wireless cloud features. The IP and signals are updated regularly, and all UTM features provide good basic gateway-level security.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide real-time attack prevention is a basic requirement for our private security network.

The bugs can be improved.

I have been using the solution for eight years.

The solution is stable. We encounter small bugs sometimes but they are not a problem.

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is good.

Positive

For experienced people, the initial setup is straightforward. Cloud deployment can be challenging for someone new. The deployment takes around one hour.

We implement the solution for our clients.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Our clients are enterprise-level.

The PA400 series has good performance and security.

I recommend Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to others.

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for segmentation and basic routing. They are the gatekeepers for the network.

I like being able to investigate anonymous VPNs and also like to use traffic-capturing features. We've had some anonymous VPNs coming to our network, and we're trying to make sure that internal users are not able to use those to get past our security.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have a very nice interface for logging and monitoring. I find it easy to navigate and use, and the interface is organized as well. I can find answers within a couple of hours and have seen time savings.

We have Azure firewalls that are licensed through Palo Alto. It's super important that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities because we are moving almost entirely to Azure. Thus, the more Azure integration we have, the better it's going to be for us long term.

These firewalls have been efficient at securing data centers consistently across all workplaces.

We haven't had many downtime issues with Palo Alto.

The customer-facing side needs to be improved in terms of the engagement and involvement of support staff.

My first exposure to this solution was about a year and a half ago.

The firewalls are relatively stable. We have a few that go up and down, but that has more to do with licensing issues than with the firewall itself.

Technical support needs to be improved with regard to the time to respond and the response itself. We've been getting the same responses over and over again. It would help us out a lot if the technical support staff were more engaged or involved.

From what I've heard from our firewall engineer, I would rate technical support a four out of ten.

Neutral

We utilize GlobalProtect and have seen a better return on investment with regard to security and peace of mind.

Licensing is a big issue for us because of the complexity and the lack of engagement from Palo Alto. It has been hard to talk with them as we don't get the best answers.

We are always evaluating other vendors and are currently looking at Cisco. Though both Palo Alto and Cisco firewalls are feature-rich and provide very good value, Cisco is better at customer engagement. They are easier to talk to as well.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are not the cheapest and fastest, but they are one of the top ones in terms of the most effective firewalls.

Overall, I would rate NG Firewalls an eight out of ten. They're definitely a top competitor.

I love the opportunity to see technical demos and take hands-on tours with some of the products at RSA conferences. They are the best part because I get to learn and gain exposure to new technology. It is particularly helpful when we want to look at other avenues.