Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

We are doing the centralized network for the global base. We have several countries with different firewalls being used and we are also cataloging the log to keep data on that. When we're having some issues, we can track back the details via Palo Alto Networks.

Most firewalls are the same, however, it depends on the service. If they have a good service, that means they guarantee that our business does not have any impact. That is a very important part of business today.

Palo Alto is very user-friendly.

It's a stable solution

Technical support is quite helpful.

We can scale well.

The initial setup was complex.

The licensing costs are quite high.

I would like there to already be a log centralized for the things, however, I don't see any soft security operation center or something that can make it a regular report. When we need some GDPR policy, we just have a one-pack we deploy and tune by ourselves a little bit to suit our organization. We'd like to have something more standardized for this purpose. It would be more of a value-add. 

We'd like more log monitoring in general.

I've been using the solution for five years already.

While it was stable, the one thing that I am not sure about is the Cortex Advantage. Maybe we have to leave it again as the life cycle of the hardware is almost finished. We are looking for some other solutions as well.

We have the full-scale of the Panorama solution. We are using the Cortex, the XDR from Palo Alto, as well and link all of them together to go to the Cortex network intelligence. We can scale when we need to.

There are about 5,000 users on the solution right now. 

We are impressed with the Thailand technical team.

When we have some trouble or issues happen, they always are there to help us guide us to solve the issue, and sometimes they even escalate the case to the global team.

We have certain firewalls in AWS and in Azure as well.

We had a complex initial setup. It wasn't that simple to execute. We do have help with deployment, however. We have a deputy to help us to deploy but Palo Alto also supports us as well.

The deployment itself was quick. In two months we were up and running.

We only have two people on our end looking at maintenance. The company that handled deployment had four people and also Palo Alto has some specialists and engineers. They had two guys, the implementer had four and we had two more - we were eight people in total.

We have a vendor that helps us. They also take care of the maintenance. 

We haven't noted an ROI yet. We'd like to see some reporting on that.

It's an expensive solution.

We pay a yearly fee. It is just one fee and everything is covered under it, including support.

We're a customer and end-user.

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We work with other firewall brands that are also quite impressive as well. 

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.

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.

My customers use this solution in their companies. 

Especially for big, worldwide clients, one of the most valuable features is being able to create some rules to place on the security groups.

We have had some issues in the past because integrating a new device is not intuitive. If there is some room for improvement, that would be it.

I'm not an expert on the matter, but I would like to see more capabilities regarding automation and integration. We are seeing a trend where the clients are asking for integrations with European tools. I know the solution is quite integral with all kinds of tools, but there are some different tools here in the market in Europe, so this is important. 

The menu is full of options, which is good in some ways, but for a newbie it can be a little bit overwhelming and you need to properly understand it before starting to work with it. I think the ramp up at the beginning is quite intense.

I have been familiar with this solution for two years. 

The solution is quite stable. Among our clients, it is actually one of the preferred solutions. 

Our clients who use this solution are enterprise companies. We have around 50 people at our company working with the solution. The number of admins needed for the solution depends on the company, but most of our clients have over 15 admins. 

The initial setup is kind of easy. I think it takes about half a day to set it up properly. 

The pricing is considered a little bit expensive, but depending on the client, it's worth it. Again, it depends on the client, but they generally consider it a good solution.

The payment structure depends on the contract that the client has with Palo Alto. I think usually the cloud solution is charged monthly.

I also work with Fortinet, and I think their solution is more intuitive. The menus are less charged, and I found the documentation to be a little bit more clear.

I would tell people considering this product that you always have the support of Palo Alto. They can be plan B just in case something happens while configuring a new device, for example, to ensure everything gets configured the way it should be at the beginning.

I would rate this solution as an eight 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.

We use Panorama in order to centrally manage our firewall.

Basically, in my firewalls, I usually create new signatures and deploy them for each endpoint firewall in each region. It's great for creating signatures and activating activities.

It's pretty user-friendly. The user interface is good. 

The product has been stable. 

It's not part of my role to connect other devices to Panorama, so I don't know how the integration works. I maybe need a better understanding of how the policies of the signature work. For example, what does it mean to exclude an IP, and what are the policy rules and priorities? I need more knowledge about the signature policy and priorities.

Instead of searching their knowledge base in their website, maybe they can interact with us in the user interface to explain things better. If they had pop-ups to help guide us, we might get fewer failures along the way. Small notifications would be quite helpful. 

I've been working with the solution for one year. 

It is very stable, from my experience, at least. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. I'd rate it an eight or nine out of ten in terms of stability.

I don't deal with scaling the solution. I am not sure what is possible. 

We have about five to ten users on the solution right now. 

I had some interactions with the technical support of Palo Alto.

They have been pretty good overall. We are mostly satisfied. 

Positive

We are using Aqua Sec. 

I did not handle the initial setup process. I can't speak to how it went. 

Our technical team manages the initial implementation process. 

In my experience in general, Palo Alto is very expensive.

We tested Palo Alto solution for Kubernetes, and the Aqua Sec and Aqua Sec was much cheaper than Palo Alto. If Palo Alto were less expensive like them, maybe we would've chosen them over Aqua Sec.

I've never compared the solution to other options. The company uses it and therefore I do too. 

We are working with version ten or somewhere around that. I am not sure of the exact version. 

I'm an end-user and I am non-technical. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.