Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

We are a solution provider and one of the Palo Alto products that we implement for our clients is Panorama. This product is a management solution for cloud firewalls.

It is a central management and logging system.

When a customer has many locations and they would like to push policies to all of the firewalls from one central location, Panorama is the product that enables customers to do this. They can configure templates and push them out to all locations. This makes it easy to manage.

All of the reports and events from different locations can be managed centrally.

Aside from pricing, I don't have any issues with Panorama.

We have been dealing with Panorama for more than five years.

The product is stable and I haven't faced many issues with it.

Panorama is a scalable solution.

The technical support is nice.

With respect to deployment, they have both the virtualized product as well as the offline version. The initial configuration might take two to three hours, with an additional hour for configuration. I would budget four hours in total.

The price of Panorama is expensive.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Within our organization, there are roughly 800 users using Palo Alto Networks Panorama. We may continue using this solution in the future, we're not quite sure yet.

The reporting is great.

The notification and alerting system could be improved.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for three years. 

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is both scalable and stable.

I am very satisfied with the customer support.

The installation process was very easy, however, installation times can vary quite a bit. For us, it took roughly a month and a half. 

We implemented this solution through a vendor support team. 

I would recommend this solution to other interested companies. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks Panorama a rating of nine.

Panorama is very easy, easy to administrate, and easy to control.

It's difficult to implement. 

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for approximately five years. 

Palo Alto is very stable and is a great global solution.

There are more than 5,000 users in my company.

I would rate their support a ten out of ten. 

I would recommend this solution. 

I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

This product is part of our overall security solution.

The most valuable feature is the Threat Intelligence.

It is easy to use.

I would like to have better analytics.

The network traffic analysis (NTA) is something that you can add on to get more insight from the traffic passing through the firewall, and it should be included.

We have been working with Panorama for at least five to six years.

Palo Alto Panorama is a stable product.

We did not have any challenges with respect to scalability.

Our team has managed properly so we have not often needed to contact technical support. I would say that they are okay, as we have not had any problems with them.

We are currently using several different firewalls. There is Check Point, Fortinet, Juniper, and Palo Alto. Check Point was the first one that we used.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took a couple of weeks to deploy.

Our in-house team handled the deployment and is responsible for maintenance.

Palo Alto is expensive and there are many cheaper firewalls, but they do not work as well.

My advice to anybody who is looking at this solution is that it is easy and straightforward to use, although more difficult than some to deploy. It is expensive but if you can afford it, then it's worth it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are using it to manage the configuration of the firewall to validate that the environment is properly hardened (i.e., vulnerabilities are minimized).  

Networks Panorama has improved our organization by allowing us to operate more efficiently and make sure that fewer errors are made in our security setup and choices.  

The most valuable feature in my opinion is the compliance capabilities that help us meet defined requirements. These features are very effective at identifying things that need to be properly hardened.  

I would like to see Networks Panorama more integrated into the firewall solutions rather than being a separate component. This would be helpful so that we can do rule-based change management for the firewall through it as well.  

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for about nine months.  

I think that Networks Panorama has been a very stable solution.  

I have not had any issues in working with the scalability of the product. We have about five users who are primarily IP security that work directly with the product. The number of users is not a problem. The scalability obviously has to do with applying the product to the architecture.  

My experience with Palo Alto technical support has been excellent.  

The installation and setup are very straightforward.  

The pricing model is reasonable for this class of solutions.  

Implementing Palo Alto Panorama is something I would strongly recommend for people who are considering it that have a need for this kind of security solution. It makes your life a lot easier in building a robust security response.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate this product overall as a nine-out-of-ten. If they fix the integration, that would bring it up pretty much right to a ten-of-ten at least for now.  

We use the solution to manage the several Palo Alto firewalls we have. We are customers of Palo Alto and I'm an information systems and security manager.

I think the centralized management is a valuable feature because you can set corporate wide policies and push it out to all the firewalls without touching each one. 

I'd like to see improvement in the speed and reliability of the solution. They're the two things most important to me right now. 

I've been using the solution for the past 18 months. 

The solution always runs but the problems we have occur when we make changes. Sometimes the results are not what we expected. Sometimes you make changes in the software and then you push it to the firewalls. Theoretically, you should be able to make the changes and push at the same time but we have found that we have to save them first and then push. After that it usually works. That process could be simplified. We have two people using the solution.

I can't speak to the scalability of the solution. 

We hired a consultant for the initial setup. None of our staff are firewall engineers. We're more like firewall administrators and our environment is quite complex. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution to centrally manage multiple firewalls that we have in our infrastructure and to be able to consistently push policies to them. It's really just a management platform.

The most valuable aspects of the solution are the backup to recovery, pushing out the patches, and scheduling. 

It also has good reporting capabilities in it as well.

I don't see many places to improve the solution. For us, it's working quite well.

The solution should improve the speed at which they make changes on the system. Historically, they've been a bit slow in that respect. They should apply changes to the box quicker and more often.

I've probably used the solution a few years now. I would say that it's been at least three to four years.

The solution is very stable. It's reliable. We don't experience bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash. It works as expected.

Right now, the solution appears to be very scalable. I should note that, with a company of our size, we're not pushing it to its functional limits or anything by any stretch of the imagination. That said, it scales very well for us.

I personally have never required much help from them, but I have found that they're very responsive. Our company has been satisfied with the level of support they have provided us over the years.

The initial setup was not complex. It was actually quite straightforward.

My engineer did most of the installation for the organization. We didn't need outside resources or any kind.

We pay approximately $3,000 a year in order to use the product.

We're a reseller of Palo Alto.

We're currently using the most up to date version of the solution at our organization.

I would advise companies considering using the solution to go through the training before setting out on implementing anything. New users should maybe be somewhat familiar with it before they do the installation, just so that they can familiarize themselves with how it works. It's not difficult, however, you just don't want to go at it without having some understanding of where things are located. It will make the setup much easier.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten overall. It's a very solid product from a management perspective. Often companies will try to oversell how great their product is, however, in this case, it's true. It's very good.

We mainly use this solution to centralize our management.

What I really like about this program, is the easy integration of the firewalls and the core management interface, which is almost exactly the same as the single firewall.

I think the multitenancy of this solution can be improved. I would also like to see better management task automation for the trial environment. That is missing in this solution.

In the next version, I would like to have more integration with the cloud and with the services delivered by Palo Alto. It isn't very task integrated at this stage. I would also like more dashboard management. 

The solution is absolutely stable.

I believe the solution is scalable, because it is able to manage more than 3000 devices for our company without any issues.

I am impressed by the customer service. The Palo Alto software is a good, fast and it is easy and quick to find a solution.

The initial setup was very easy and deployment took about four hours.

If you compare the price of this solution to other management solutions, it is relatively low. You only pay for the license and there are no additional costs.

My advice to others who are looking into implementing it, I would say that the solution is practically completely perfect. It gets a ten out of ten rating from me.