Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

We are using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for a single pane of glass view of our network. 

Palo Alto Networks Panorama provides many features, such as alerts, traffic monitoring, and logs.

Sometimes in Palo Alto Networks Panorama, we receive issues where it is overloaded and unresponsive. We have issues with accessing the devices due to a slow response from Panorama.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama should be more robust and resilient. 

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

The stability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable.

We have approximately 250,000 users using this solution.

We have a technical support manager from Palo Alto Networks Panorama but their response time could be faster.

We previously used Cisco ASA and we switched to Palo Alto Networks Panorama because it is a superior solution.

The initial installation of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is straightforward and the process takes a couple of hours.

We used an integrator to do the implementation of Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

We have four to five engineers that support the solution.

There is a license required to use this solution and it is paid annually.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of ten 

My clients use Palo Alto Networks Panorama for centralized management of multiple firewalls across various locations. It allows them to easily oversee and configure all their firewalls through a single interface, streamlining security management across their network infrastructure.

The most valuable aspect of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for me is the centralized management of multiple firewalls. It saves time, provides consolidated visibility into my network, and allows me to configure all firewalls from one web interface, eliminating the need to access each firewall separately.

In the future, it would be beneficial if Panorama could include a firewall assurance feature similar to Skybox. While each firewall has its policy optimizer, a consolidated policy optimizer in Panorama could further enhance firewall management and optimization.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for over ten years.

Panorama is stable.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable and can support up to 1,000 devices, making it suitable for various network sizes. In terms of clients, it is mainly used by larger customers with more than ten firewalls. Some smaller customers with six or eight firewalls may not opt for Panorama, but those with ten or more find it beneficial for centralized management.

I find Palo Alto Networks' technical support to be good, especially with premium support. The initial support level is handled by us, and if we encounter issues beyond our scope, Palo Alto's support team is efficient in resolving them. I would rate the support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

Installing Palo Alto Networks Panorama is easy, and connecting firewalls is a straightforward process. Deployment typically requires just one person, usually the firewall administrator. Maintenance is also easy, especially for those familiar with managing individual firewalls, and Panorama serves additional functions like log collection and setting up SD-WAN functionality, making it highly useful for networks with multiple firewalls.

In terms of return on investment, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is worthwhile, especially for larger networks with more than ten firewalls. The time saved and the consolidated view it provides investment pay off quickly, often within a couple of months.

In terms of pricing, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is moderate. It is very affordable when compared to more expensive firewalls. The license is yearly, and the price typically includes the initial license and support, with subsequent years requiring only twenty percent of the initial license cost for support. It is negotiable, and the overall cost depends on your network setup and the type of firewalls you are using.

Overall, I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama as an eight out of ten.

We require Palo Alto Networks Panorama to safeguard internet access for our users. Additionally, we need features such as URL filtering and sandboxing, among other useful functionalities.

The Palo Alto Networks Panorama was highly useful to us. However, it is important to consider that Palo Alto is a specific solution, and therefore one must be certain about their requirements before investing in it as it can sometimes be overburdening and expensive. Despite this, Palo Alto offers a plethora of features that can be useful if required. The product was great, and whenever there was a bug or issue, they released updates quickly. Additionally, their support was very good.

Feature-wise, Palo Alto Networks Panorama had a mix of everything. With the centralized view for the firewall, it was really convenient to have the same rule set for all. We could check everything from the logs, do some packet tracing, and more. In the beginning, we had BrightCloud as a database provider, but we eventually moved to Palo Alto Networks Panorama, which was also convenient. So, we can say that the ease of use was a big factor.

The pricing of the solution could be considered an area of improvement, as it is a comprehensive and feature-rich product that may include features that are not needed by some companies. Therefore, the solution should have a more competitive pricing structure.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for three to four years. There are a lot of upgrades, so I don't clearly remember the version.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. I may consider increasing the solution's usage.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

In the beginning, the solution was hosted in a data center that was not owned by us but by Verizon. However, when we migrated to SD-WAN, it became cloud-based.

The infrastructure was managed by Verizon towards the end. Therefore, any issues or problems, as well as room modifications, were raised by us through a ticket, and they took care of everything related to the infrastructure. So, it wasn't something we had to deal with directly.

I have seen a return on the investment. But maybe we can see higher ROI with other solutions at the moment. So, we are a bit tight on budget now.

I would tell those planning to buy the product that if you really need those features and you are able to afford the price, go for it because it will probably be hard to get by any other product with the same features. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We are using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for a firewall between the DMZ and the enterprise.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its ease of use.

The solution can improve by providing unique reports in relation to the function of which you choose the firewall to do.

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

We have used the solution for a long time and it has been operating steadily. We have not had issues.

I rate the scalability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of ten. We are using the solution in enterprise companies. There are approximately 3,000 to 4,000 people using the solution.

We used the support for some hardware inquiries and for some issues. They were about to resolve the issues.

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is simple. The implementation is done in stages. The first stage, takes approximately three to four hours.

We have our own in-house team that does the implementation.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is expensive.

If the use case fits the solution then it will work very well.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama eight out of ten.

Even though there was a dedicated team to monitor the logs with the SIEM platform, I would use the solution when there is a potential outbreak to provide a particular tool to view the effects of the outbreak on my environment.

It was a good functional tool. When we had multiple Palo Alto devices to be managed, it provided a lot of visibility onto those solutions. It was a good and useful tool.

The solution helped us consolidate and use logs.

The UI was fine. The visualization would be almost similar to Palo Alto Firewalls.

Overall, the functionality was very good.

It was a stable product.

It's easy to set up. 

I don't have any real comments in terms of areas of improvement. 

The scalability is limited. 

It is an expensive product. 

The last time I used the solution was six months ago. I recently switched jobs. I previously used the solution for about three or four years. 

The solution was stable and reliable. There were no bugs or glitches, and it didn't crash or freeze. I'd rate the stability of the solution nine out of ten. 

It's not hugely scalable. It has limited scalability. That said, it's good. It offers what is requested. It depends on your initial planning and pricing, so it's not great in scalability. However, I would give it an overall scalability rating of seven out of ten.

At my old company, we had six to eight people using the solution. 

I did raise some tickets with technical support, and I found them to be helpful and responsive. 

Positive

It was pretty easy to set up. I did not find the implementation complex. I'd rate the ease of deployment nine out of ten. 

The pricing of the product is high. They aren't very cost-effective. That said, they do provide high value to organizations. 

I've seen three other devices like FortiGate and FortiManager as well as FortiAnalyzer. However, I can't make apples-to-apples comparisons between the solutions. I can say that the interface of Panorama is better in general, and Panorama does offer very good visibility.

I was a customer and end-user. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our customers are using the product.

The solution offers good logging features. 

The management is great. 

It is easy to set up.

The solution is stable.

I can scale well. 

Using a Palo Alto solution is very straightforward. 

We have faced some challenges with the solution. We had Panorama in the cloud, and then we used Panorama to manage the on-prem firewalls. Then we had some network-centric architecture to connect to on-prem, where we had two separate Palo Alto firewalls on the cloud. From there, we had a direct connect, external direct connect to the on-prem. In that case, the issue we faced was that whenever the traffic left AWS, it went with any one of the subnets, either from availabilities on one subnet or availabilities on two subnets. When we configured Panorama, it was actually behind a NAT device on two separate IP signals, and there were challenges around that.

When we were deploying Panorama in AWS, there were some issues with Panorama deployment in AWS. I was the first customer to deploy Panorama in AWS, and I raised a case with both AWS and Panorama. Then, in the next Panorama release, they enhanced some features, and both came up in the same version. I had to wait for two or three months to get to a resolution. 

Sometimes technical support is slow to respond. 

The solution is expensive. 

Panorama can be a bit difficult compared to other Palo Alto solutions. It would be ideal if they could simplify it a bit. 

I've been using the solution for two years. 

Overall, the product is stable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We haven't had an issue with scalability.

We work mainly with enterprise-level organizations. 

In our region, technical support is not so good. We need to wait if we are reaching out with a P1 case. Sometimes we have to wait for two or three hours. That can be an issue.

I do also work with various other vendors. 

The initial setup is very simple and quite straightforward. It was not overly complex. It's been two years now since I implemented the solution, and therefore I cannot recall exactly how long the deployment took. While the process was smooth, we did face some integration issues, for example, integrating the active standard Palo Alto to Panorama.

It's a costly product. All Palo Alto products are pretty expensive. Nowadays, people are looking for security and something that offers easy management. Therefore, Palo Alto can easily charge what they want. 

We're partners. We handle pre-sales and implementation of the solution for clients. 

It's a good product. However, if a company wants to deploy the solution, it should first do a proper study and design it properly. Otherwise, they will likely run into issues. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Panorama is a management server that is used to manage the Palo Alto firewalls.

We have almost 20 firewalls in our environment managed by this particular server. Panorama is an appliance, it's not a firewall. It is a management server, which is used to manage or push the policies. If you want to install a policy on the firewall, or you want to allow legitimate traffic, then you leverage this management server.

It's helped with the centralization of policies and installation. It's helped us do everything in one place instead of one at a time. 

In Panorama, installing the policy, and pushing the policy, it's quite seamless. 

It is a centralized management tool. Instead of logging into each firewall and configuring it or deploying the policies, it's quite easy as everything is in one place. We can push the policy and install the policies centrally instead of individually on each firewall. 

In order to push a policy via Panorama, we need to ensure that the firewall is syncing with the management server. I have hardly found any post-upgrade issue with the Panorama management server or the Palo Alto firewall. They are never out of sync.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It's scalable.

The solution is stable. 

The inbuilt RAM is quite low. If you are increasing the number of firewalls and you want to get this managed via this management server, there are some performance issues. The cost of this product is more. However, the resources they have provided, the inbuilt resources, are less. 

The pricing is quite high.

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

It is a stable solution. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

We have approximately 20 firewalls, which is integrated with Panorama, and it's doing pretty good.

This solution is like the backbone of inbound and outbound services. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

In terms of scalability, it should be able to manage all the firewalls. That said, you need to consider capacity planning down the line for the number of resources, like the CPU memory, if it is low. How many resources are required to be increased to manage these number of firewalls is determined. Capacity planning definitely is required if you're looking for a scalable solution.

Right now, we have no plans to increase usage. We might not look at any increase until five or six years later. 

Technical support has been very good. 

Positive

Cisco does have this centralized management feature as well. They have an ASDM in the Cisco firewall, which is nothing more than a centralized management server. Even Nokia and Check Point have management servers.

Palo Alto is never out of sync with Panorama. However, I find I have issues with Check Point and syncing. We often need to troubleshoot in those scenarios. 

We have Fortinet firewalls. Fortinet is a market leader in terms of Gartner metrics. We have Check Point firewalls as well. That said, Palo Alto is more into the cyber security solution. Everyone is following the footprints of Palo Alto as they were the first to imagine the industry, provide the necessary cybersecurity solutions and next-generation firewalls, and innovate on everything.

The setup itself is very simple and straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

In terms of maintenance, in terms of security, we do require additional resources. Once the security infrastructure is compromised, it'll need a business outage. So we require additional resources in the firewall technology.

The deployment was handled in-house. 

We have definitely seen an ROI. 

When it comes to pricing, compared to the OTC and MRC values, it's really high. They are the market leaders and due to their monopoly, whatever they will demand, we have to pay.

I would rate it five out of five in terms of value for money, however.

I've looked at almost every other product over the last 15 years. However, Palo Alto offers the best cybersecurity solutions. 

Palo Alto definitely a market leader in terms of firewall technology. 

They have good features.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

We are using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for security and access controls.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama has some bugs that could be fixed.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for approximately one year.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is stable.

The scalability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good.

We have less than 100 people using this solution in my organization.

I have used the support from Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

I rate the support from Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is of a medium level of difficulty.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house.

There is a license needed to use Palo Alto Networks Panorama. The cost is not that important, what is important is meeting all the requirements and security features.

We decided to use Palo Alto Networks Panorama over other solutions because we have the strategy sheet which defines our requirements, and our requirements were mostly met. We have a standardized service we want to deliver when it comes to a firewall we use Palo Alto Networks Panorama, if we use load balancers, we use F5, and for networks, we use Cisco. We have certain things that are already defined as a criterion for us to follow.

My advice to others is if this solution fits their use case then they should use it.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of ten.