Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

We primarily use the solution in order to protect our perimeter. It's used for security purposes.

The product is set up so that we can handle more than one firewall. We can handle a bunch all in one application. It makes it simpler that everything is more centralized.

The firewall rules and policies are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

The interface and dashboard are quite good. 

We haven't had any issues with the management of the solution.

The product offers good technical support and documentation.

We haven't had issues with scalability or performance. It's been very stable over the years.

I don't recall the initial setup giving us any troubles.

I haven't come across any issues with the product. Overall, it's been very positive.

I don't recall missing any features. It's a fairly complete solution.

The product could offer more integration with other solutions.

I've been dealing with the solution for five or six years at this point. It's been a while. It's not new to our company.

The solution is quite stable. There are no glitches or bugs. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is reliable.

We are currently in a hardware upgrade and I hope that it's very seamless. It is scalable; we checked the hardware and I do not expect to upgrade again due to the current hardware performance being really good.

We've connected with technical support a few times. It was normal, much like our experience with other vendors. They are average and provide the support we require. We are satisfied so far with their level of attention.

I also have experience with various firewalls, such as Checkpoint, Palo Alto, and Cisco.

The initial setup was not handled by myself. It was handled by a colleague. However, I do not recall them struggling with the implementation. The setup seemed to be quite straightforward. It's not overly complex, from what I witnessed.

My colleague handled the implementation.

I can't directly speak to the price of the solution. It's not an aspect of the solution I handle.

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with the organization.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's been very useful for our organization and we've been quite happy with its capabilities.

It is a next-generation firewall, and therefore you can use it for a lot of requirements, and lots of solutions. I would highly recommend it.

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 use the solution for centralized monitoring. 

Clients need to have an alarm and alert system from which they can forward the trigger. The product needs to improve its integration as well. 

I have been working with the tool for seven years. 

I would rate the product's stability a seven out of ten. 

The product is scalable. 

The product's support needs to improve. 

The product's deployment was simple. 

The product's pricing is high but flexible. It now follows the pay-per-use pricing model. I would rate the tool's pricing a five out of ten. 

I would rate the product a seven out of ten. 

We have used this solution to design LLD, HLD and PLB queues as well as development queues. Once approved, we implement and configure drone and drone protections. We have also used this solution for App-IDs.

This solution is user-friendly. It is centrally managed and provides role optimization, without the need for additional tools. We also make use of URL filtering and App-IDs. 

We have experienced a few bugs which the team at Palo Alto don't have solutions for. 

In the next release, it would be good to have features which increase the processing power in clusters.

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The technical team are knowledgeable and have helped us solve some complex issues. However, there are some team members who are not very knowledgable and some issues take longer than a week to resolve. 

Neutral

The initial setup is easy and takes less than three hours. The setup time does depend on migration activity and how much configuration needs to be done, as that takes additional time. 

I have worked with FortiGate and Palo Alto. Both are quite similar but I have experienced more bugs in FortiGate compared to Palo Alto. Both products have the same functionality, although FortiGate does have more features. 

Palo Alto has rule optimizers, reporting and many other capabilities built in and so other products (such as FortiGate or Check Point) do not need to be used with this solution. This is what makes Pal Alto affordable compared to other solutions. 
Compared to other firewalls, this is the most reliable solution. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is used to manage the Palo Alto firewalls.

We are attracted to Palo Alto because it is stable. It is very simple to use.

When they bring anything to the market, it is really well done.

There could be more integrations with third parties.

I have been dealing with Palo Alto for more than ten years, and have been selling Palo Alto Networks Panorama since it was first released.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama's stability has never been an issue for me. It's fantastic.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a scalable product.

I have not contacted technical support.

We haven't had any escalation issues, which means they're doing a good job.

We are also selling SentinelOne.

From Palo Alto, we sell everything from firewalls to endpoint security.

I was not involved with the setup.

Licensing fees are paid yearly.

We are in EDR. We don't sell any products or any information for threat intelligence.

If they have Palo Alto products, and multiple sites, it's definitely something they would need.

It is difficult to give it a ten because there is always room for development. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten. 

We use it for centralized management of all their firewalls.

We're using it on-prem.

The most valuable feature is WildFire.

There is room for improvement in the integration within endpoint detection. They need to do some integration between endpoints and the firewalls.

They also need to add a mobile version for product so we can access the interface easily.

The solution is very stable.

It's scalable because it's running on VMs.

Between users and admins, we have up to 5,000 people on this product.

Technical support is very good.

We use different solutions but the interface from Panorama is much easier for management.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I would recommend this solution.

We have a managed services offering, which we give to our clients where we can monitor the different database applications and environments on their behalf. We bundle a service between Palo Alto Panorama and Palo Alto BMCDs, as a set of security controls for them.

The telemetry visibility is really good as well as the automated workflows for creating policies. The overall solution is quite intuitive to use.

The solution could improve by having a true single pane of glass environment for unified management. At the present time, you still have to use three or four different solutions to bring everything together.

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

We have not had any major bugs. However, there have been unexpected restarts and a memory leak a while ago, but nothing that the vendor did not fix in a few days.

The solution is easy to scale.

We have approximately 50 people using the solution in my organization.

The support was able to help us with the issues we were having. They are very good.

The initial setup is somewhat straightforward, you most likely will need assistants.

You will need managed services or an IT professional to do the implementation.

The solution is expensive and could be cheaper.

When implementing Palo Alto Networks Panorama with solutions you might require professional services.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten.

The ability to manage a large number of firewalls from a single point is most valuable.

Its scalability can be improved. It is too expensive to scale it in the way Palo Alto wants us to scale. Scalability is one of the main reasons why our customer is looking for alternatives. It is too expensive to scale.

Its redundancy also requires improvement, but it seems that in the latest version, redundancy is improved, and you can have more than two devices in an HA pair. So, they are heading in that direction.

It would be good if they combine their dynamic list functionality in a much better way with Panorama and include it as out-of-the-box functionality. Palo Alto supports the dynamic list functionality for some basic threats, but there is a lot of scope for improvement.

I have been using this solution for almost nine years.

It is 100% stable.

It is too expensive to scale, which is one of the main reasons why our customer is looking for alternatives.

Its initial setup is straightforward. If you have a basic knowledge of Palo Alto Networks, you will be able to spin it up.

I would recommend this solution. It is the best in the class.

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