Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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. 

We are a cybersecurity business, so we are a Palo Alto reseller and integrator. We also use Palo Alto to run our firewalls in our own environment. 

It's really the central management component that helps us. From a configuration point of view, when we are implementing it for large organizations where the customer owns a hundred firewalls, it's just easy to manage them all at one central location. I think that's probably one of the best features from a visibility component.

Price is probably one of the biggest things that we struggle with, specifically with Palo, and that's across their whole portfolio. Also, the tech support could be better.

I have been working with this solution for about five years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is easy to scale.

On a scale of one to five, I would rate the technical support as a four. 

Positive

The setup process is simple and straightforward. 

If I were to rate the pricing of Palo on a scale of one to five, with one being really high and five being a good, reasonable price, I would rate Palo as a three.

We generally compare Palo Alto with the offerings from Check Point because they both seem to have the majority of the market share here in my region.
From a stability point of view, I think Panorama is better. Check Point is struggling with their current software releases along those lines, and Panorama is very good at releasing new features along those lines. Palo is a lot faster than a lot of the competitors on the market.

I would rate Panorama as an eight out of ten.

This solution allows us to centrally manage all devices. It's deployed on-premises.

There are 10,000 employees in my organization. We have two or three data centers across the globe.

It's easy to deploy any software or policies. Even if you have multiple devices across the globe, if you have urgent searching or maybe policy enforcement, you can do it easily.

The interface is easy to understand and manage. It's an intelligent device and can capture any spyware or vulnerabilities.

It's a leader in the market, and they observe the market requirement and upgrade the software accordingly.

The price could be lower. I would like to see remote VPN, like the Cisco client.

I've been working with Panorama for four years.

Panorama is stable.

It's scalable.

Setup isn't simple, but it's easy to migrate from another vendor.

Right now, we use 40 employees to manage the solution.

Cost-wise, it's very expensive. If you want to go with another vendor, Cisco and Fortinet are good for medium-size networks.

I would rate the cost 4 out of 5.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

We use this solution because it provides us with a consistent security profile no matter the location. Regardless of users, we use the same configuration. 

We also use Panorama for management. Currently, all of our users are working from home — this solution has helped us manage everything. 

Over the next four years, we are planning on moving all of our data centers onto the cloud.  

Before I joined this organization, they experienced some issues when trying to set up zone protection parameters. Last week I applied a zone protection profile; for each and every branch, I had to apply a zone protection profile or modify existing metrics — I needed to physically go to each branch. When we originally deployed Panorama, we were managing the firewalls individually. After implementing all those firewalls and changing all of the templates, it's really hard to modify them. 

You can't just modify them with a single click, you need to physically go to each individual branch and make the changes yourself — we can't directly seal all of the fireworks. This needs to be improved. 

With version 9.1, when configuring it, if something goes wrong, then it reverts back to your original settings automatically. This is a nice feature but it's not available on the standard firewalls. If we didn't have Panorama and I was setting up some remote Palo Alto firewalls, after implementing my configurations, if I were to lose the configurations then I would lose firewall access. This isn't the case with other firewalls like Cisco and Juniper SRX where you can just put in a reminder in the last 10 minutes. 

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

Besides the odd bug, Panorama is stable. From a management point of view, it's good. Even though we now have 25 firewalls, with a single click, we can add and submit a request. With a single click, we can apply changes to all 25 firewalls. Upgrading our remote locations, the firewalls, logs, and the reporting is all very easy. We can easily add more power and stability, it's nice.

GlobalProtect is a great extension that you can add on. If something goes wrong with our cloud solution, then it will automatically fall back to our local physical firewalls across the globe. We have four different locations that GlobalProtect automatically connects to. At the moment, our company is expanding so we are adding more clients. 

The technical support is pretty good. The best part about Palo Alto is that you can find answers with a simple Google search. Compared to other vendors, all of their technical data is online — for all of their solutions. Still, sometimes we prefer to use support. Sometimes it takes time as their technical team has to regenerate our issues in their lab, etc. 

The initial setup can be complex. As I mentioned before, making modifications is very difficult. Before implementing, you need to plan carefully.

Our engineer made some mistakes when he was setting it up; we still experience some complications due to that as everything is already in place and we can't change it. 

Licenses are available on a one to three-year basis. If you go for a one-year license, you won't get much of a discount. We have a three-year license for all of our firewalls. Currently, we have 25 firewall licenses.

Currently, we have around 20 TB of data. We are in the process of upgrading our licenses because we are adding more and more files.

The price of the licenses could be lower. Still, because we have Panorama with 25 firewalls, Palo Alto gives us a good discount. 

I would definitely recommend Panorama to others. Compared to all of the other firewall vendors, Palo Alto is very secure. Personally, I'd say it's the best firewall vendor on the market. When combined with WildFire, it's highly secure; just make sure you configure it properly as there are a lot of viruses out there. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Panorama a rating of nine. 

We use the solution for segregation. We also use it as a gateway in order to do URL filtering on the DNI as a security measure. We use the product's global protective VPN as well. 

The application ID, this kind of technology, has a very high-level check. It makes everything more secure for your enterprise network. Otherwise, fake applications can sneak in. 

If you're using application ID, they check the high side, the traffic, and they analyze everything. They see if it's a normal application. They're working closely with each vendor, to make it easy to identify applications. For the hackers or malicious traffic, they can see it and block it. 

I like the user ID and the application ID as it's easy to identify the popular applications and the EZT does the security checking in regards to the user and the application ID.

The initial setup is very easy.

The solution is easy to manage. It has a good interface as well.

The solution is stable.

The product can scale.

The solution offers good integration potential.

While Palo Alto is the leading firewall worldwide, it's so pricey. Other products like Checkpoint still do the job, and yet it's way cheaper than Palo Alto. The solution is extremely expensive. You can integrate it with other Palo Alto products, however, it ends up being too much.

Palo Alto prefers the VM version. However, for the VM level, often we have a migration from one host, VM host, to another host, and then the network jobs. And they're not fully redundant. With VM, the purpose is easy migration from one host to another one. That's the purpose of VM in play, however, if you want to have high availability or redundancy, you have to purchase two licenses - one on one host, another one on another host - and it costs a lot of money to do that. 

Technical support could be better.

I've used the solution for about five to seven years at this point.

It is a stable solution. With the cloud, you don't even touch the physical box at all. However, for the traditional network guests, I like my stuff to be reliable. That's why I don't like the VM migrating from one host to another host. That's why I'm in the process of converting the VM back to the physical box using redundancy. That will be the network solution. I want my network available 24/7. 

The solution is quite scalable.

We have about 150 people using the product currently.

Support is awesome. However, it can depend. When you get a ticket and you take it to the proper person, they can give you a solution really quick, and the support is really good. That said, sometimes, if you are not lucky, you create a ticket and a salesperson or specialist runs it to a different person. Sometimes it takes a long time. Sometimes they make you do a lot of the work and ask you to send them reports or check certain things. If they run the ticket to the proper person, I can resolve the problem in 10 minutes. If they run my ticket to some other person, maybe it takes a whole day or two and I don't have time to play around.

I'd rate it as average, at maybe a five out of ten in terms of the service level you get in general.

I previously used Juniper. I have experience with Cisco ASA as well. 

Currently, I use Microsoft Defender for my endpoint protection.

I switched when Palo Alto turned into the top firewall management solution. I did do research.

From the GRI management port, it's easier than Cisco ASA. 

The solution is very easy to set up. I've been working for many years on this. I know the whole process is easy to start with some simple logarithmic management It's easy to manage. 

The deployment is fast. It usually takes about a day. On the first day, you get the management running on the UI. On the second day you need to get the traffic going through the certificate, and to do some proper security policies. That's all. Yes. To do it in one day is just a one-man job.

I manage the solution myself and maintain it every two months or so. Of course, if there are any issues in between these maintenance events, I also work on them.

I did the implementation myself, however, five or seven years ago, I used a consultant and learned from him. I've likely done 20 or so firewalls myself at this point.

The issue with Palo Alto is that the price is almost double other products such as Checkpoint, or Fortinet. There's no reason you price yourself to be double other brands.

I just did a call for renewing my license. I requested two redundancy units. The price, which was all-inclusive with WiFi, a VPN solution, a global VPN, et cetera - all of them bundled together, for two units, over three years, was $81,000.

You can buy the hardware only and each box is not even $10,000. It's only $8,000 for the unit itself. However, then you are charged a three-year license at $81,000.

I'm just a customer.

I'm using the latest version of the solution.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is similar to Cisco FMC, for centralized management and monitoring of multiple Palo Alto firewalls. You can push your configuration from Palo Alto Networks Panorama to all your Palo Alto Networks firewalls. You then receive different data reports, threat reports, threat logs, and system logs. You don't need to log into each firewall to get that information or configure it because you can see or do it all in Palo Alto Networks Panorama. If there is any issue or link failure, you'll find that information on Palo Alto Networks Panorama, so the product is best for the centralized management of firewalls.

For a few projects, we used Palo Alto Panorama to manage the firewalls.

A valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is reporting because it gives you different reports on data, logs, and threats. It has easy policy management and control, NAT, PBF, decryption, and visibility.

I also like the centralized firewall management feature of the product.

The technical support for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is responsive.

A bottleneck in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is the licensing. The pricing and licensing model for the product is expensive and can be complicated, or it could be because I'm more familiar with Cisco licensing, which I find brilliant and easy, compared to Panorama licensing, which could be hell.

Another area for improvement in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is report generation.

It is expensive and suitable mostly in big enterprise environment.

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

It is stable.

It is a scalable solution.

The technical support team for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is very responsive. The support staff will call you even after the case is closed, asking you how the support was and that he hopes the same issue doesn't resurface. Panorama support is excellent.

Positive

I found the initial setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama easy.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is more expensive than its counterpart Cisco FMC, although I have some clients who don't care about the budget but care more about extra features.

Recently, my company upgraded the version of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for one of the clients, version 10.0.

If you are using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the first time, I'll advise you not to use it if you only have one to two firewalls or if you only have a small environment. Better use the product if you have four to six firewalls and want centralized management.

I'll also tell you that Palo Alto Networks Panorama requires a higher level of technicality, so you must study a lot before using it. It would be best to familiarize yourself with licensing, threat protection, decryption policies, app override, DoS protection, etc. Still, I can say that Palo Alto Networks Panorama is an excellent product to use.

My rating for the product is eight out of ten.

I'm a customer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a firewall manager for network security, such as deployment, configuration, and controls.

The solution is suitable for all sized businesses.

The alerts in Palo Alto Networks Panorama could improve by integration with other systems, such as a forwarding trigger system. For example, if a customer has their own system it would be helpful to have the alarms integrated. 

In the future, when doing an update all solutions should be updated at once. For example, if many different solutions are being managed by Palo Alto Networks Panorama the updates can be done for all firewalls, such as EDR and XDR.

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

I rate the stability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of ten.

It does not support all the solutions. However, it can scale easily.

The solution is suitable for all sized businesses.

I rate the scalability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a five out of ten.

The support could improve from the vendor. There should be standards across all solutions.

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is simple.

We do the deployment of the solution.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is high. There is a pay-per-use model.

I rate the price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a five out of ten.

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

Our primary use cases are for web security, antivirus, and remote browsing. I'm a senior security specialist and we are integrators. 

The product is very efficient. 

This is a relatively expensive solution and I wouldn't recommend it for a stand-alone deployment. 

I've used this solution for five years.  

The solution is generally stable. There can be issues but it's generally related to power supply issues a company might have.

The solution is scalable. 

The technical support is very good. They're very responsive and always have engineers available to help. 

Positive

The initial setup takes around one week and is complex. All other firewall configurations are easier than Check Point. If you face any configuration issue, the only solution is to contact the Check Point team. Deployment generally requires an engineer. 

Licensing costs are cheaper than Palo Alto but more than other solutions. It's quite expensive. 

I recommend this solution unless you're in a location with a lot of power cuts. If you work for a software company, I'll always recommend this solution. If you're looking for a stand-alone deployment, then I would recommend Fortinet. I rate this solution nine out of 10.