Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

We use it internally to manage the solutions that we provide to our customers. So, we use it to manage our own firewalls and Prisma Access. We also use it to manage managed firewalls. We can also resell it, but we don't tend to do too many panoramas.

We are using version 10.0.7, which is the latest one under version 10. We're not running 10.1 yet. We don't need to run that.

The entire ease of use is most valuable. If you're managing firewalls locally with PAN-OS, the look and feel of Panorama is the same. So, you don't have to relearn another product. If you're used to managing firewalls from Palo Alto, you can easily use Panorama to manage them. It looks and feels the same.

Our primary issue at the moment is to manage Prisma Access because we just switched over to using Prisma Access for our customers. My newest one is in North America. It is a great tool for that. The fact that you can push out your Prisma Access just dynamically and it changes into Prisma Access Cloud is fantastic.

It tends to move along fairly quickly in terms of features because it is a part of PAN-OS. We are waiting on one feature that's on the beta at the moment, but that's because we use Okta as our authentication.

Reporting might be an area to improve. It can provide reporting or some sort of graphical representation of your environment.

I have been using it for probably two years.

There are no reliability issues.

You can manage multiple environments, multiple firewalls, and multiple locations with it. So, it scales really well.

We have just a handful of admins. We have less than five of them.

I have not used their technical support.

We've always been Palo Alto. The founders of our company were ex-Palo Alto people, so it is always going to be Palo Alto.

I've been using it for two years, but I didn't actually deploy those instances at Panorama. When we recently moved to Azure, I actually deployed it in Azure, and I had no issues. So, I was a complete rookie in terms of deploying it because I'd never done it before. I did that with minimal assistance from Palo Alto or anybody. So, I would say it is easy to deploy in the cloud.

In terms of updates, PAN-OS releases come every month, six weeks, or so. You have to be running a higher or equal level of Panorama to the firewalls that you're managing. If you're keeping your firewall environments up to date, you also have to keep your Panorama up to date, and with that comes new features. You have to plan for firewall updates more than Panorama, which is just managing other environments. You can pretty much update Panorama whenever you want. There is no customer or firewall outage when you update Panorama. It is just the reboot time. You just download it, install it, and reboot it, and you're done. It takes less than 20 minutes.

We're a reseller, and we're an MSSP. So, we get some extreme discounts. 

It is easy if you're used to managing firewalls. Using Panorama to manage the firewalls is not rocket science. It is just another GUI or web UI.

Palo Alto is really good at innovation, adding new functions and features, and rolling those out on a regular basis. So, they're going in the right direction. As long as that keeps happening, they are good. They should just keep adding and improving. 

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of 10.

Panorama is one centralized management server through which all our devices are protected. It's a security management tool.

One of the most valuable aspects for us is the fact that all of the policy management and configuration management is able to happen right from the centralized management. This makes everything much easier.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

The solution, especially the latest versions, is very stable.

The product can scale well.

The customer support needs to be better. Sometimes we need to wait for hours before getting someone from the product team or someone from the Palo Alto customer support to get on a call if we are facing some issue. They could reduce the wait times.

I've been using Palo Alto for about a year and a half.

The solution is quite stable. The more high-end devices you take, the more stability. If you're using a little old model of firewalls, then there are issues with regard to stability. In such cases, Palo Alto would likely recommend you upgrade to the latest hardware. The latest hardware is really very stable.

The solution is quite scalable. 

Technical support is quite slow. They are not quick to respond.

The initial setup is easy. It is not that complex. There are articles and documentation, readily available on the Palo Alto website, the Palo Alto Portal, which can help you figure out how to configure the device.

Our deployment strategy for any new customer is to directly implement it in a testing phase. In a testing phase, we try to see if all the requirements that the customer wants to see if we will be facing any challenges. We want to initially try and replicate that in a lab scenario. That way, if there are any issues, we can get back to the team at Palo Alto and ask them questions. If it works, then the customer goes into production.

We don't have any dedicated person for maintaining anything. The antivirus, everything, can be directly, automatically updated on the firewall. That is not an issue. On top of that, if a particular device is getting into trouble then we get the NMS alerts for that device. In such scenarios, once we have a device failure at a particular site, we can have that device replaced. We can open a case with the vendor and once we give them a particular serial number or the VM instance, we can initiate an RML to replace that device with a new device. It takes a couple of days for that to happen.

We have another team that handles licensing. In operations, we do not have any visibility with regard to cost.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities.

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.

We used Panorama to control all the other modules from Palo Alto and to create the rules.

The threat prevention and layer seven security features were the most used and important for us. All operations are quite good in this solution.

We found a vulnerability where when we have a low flow, like 2.7K, it is not getting fired by the threat prevention. That's something important to improve on. They should have a proxy or some solution to solve the issue.

We also found some issues around decrypting the flow. When we have more flow than expected to decrypt, the performance goes down.

I have used this solution for one year. 

Its stability is fine. It supports the only point used here to decrypt the flows. When we have the right configuration, it has good stability.

We didn't scale up the solution because it requires a load balancer, which is not there. We have around 40,000 users.

They should have a local technical team. I would rate them a seven out of ten.

It wasn't easy, but it also wasn't very difficult. I would say it was medium. The deployment took around three months.

In order to have the right security level, you need to understand how decryption works or is used in Palo Alto. We had to clarify some points with them related to how decryption works.

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

Our firewall uses IPS and other features. We have some firewall rules using the IPS feature. For the VPN users using the MFA authentication protocol, we are using the SAML protocol.

The application ID or App-ID feature is a good feature for us. We are also using IPS and content inspection features. The firewall can inspect the packages that are passing through my network.

It should have more connection with Threat Intelligence Cloud. They can also include features related to SecOps and automation API.

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

It is awesome in terms of stability.

In terms of scalability, it is complicated because you have to scale up. Its scalability could be better. It would be great if you could scale out by integrating another node, and you are good to go. 

Currently, you have to buy new hardware with more power in terms of CPU and memory. You cannot simply increase the nodes in a cluster. In the last five months, we had to acquire new hardware because we are facing some higher usage in the Palo Alto hardware. We have about 15,000 users.

They provide good support. I would rate them an eight out of ten. 

They can increase the SOA time. When dealing with your case, sometimes, they take time. In the queue, you need to pass through one analyst and then go to the next level, which takes some time.

It was quite straightforward. In terms of technology, it was okay. As our environment is quite complicated, we had to deal with several phases of the implementation because we don't have only one appliance installed. We have implemented four Palo Altos. That's why it took some time, but it was just because of the complexity of our environment, not because of the solution itself. The whole project took one year.

We did some POCs to understand this solution. We had a lot of discussions in terms of the best way to implement this solution in our environment. It took the effort that this kind of solution normally takes.

It is not a cheap solution.

I would advise studying and understanding the best factors for implementing Palo Alto Networks Panorama and creating a roadmap to use all the features because it is not a cheap solution. Understand the possible ways to implement Palo Alto Networks Panorama and create a roadmap that implements all the features.

Palo Alto is constantly improving its solutions. They have been doing a great job and putting a great effort into their products. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten. We are satisfied with the solution.

We primarily use the solution for automation purposes and for security.

The underlying technology is very good, considering that we are moving to a work-from-home environment.

Panorama is a straightforward tool. Palo Alto is comparative to other firewalls. Some firewall tools are more user friendly, and, from a technical perspective, it is very user friendly as well. It's not like Check Point. We use a setup for offshore development centers. For all those ODCs, we usually use a Palo Alto device. We have few perimeter firewalls which are Palo Alto but for the perimeter predominantly we use Check Point.

You don't need an overly experienced workforce to handle Palo Alto. It's very easy to use.

The solution if extremely flexible and scalable.

There are too many OS upgrades. We've had six new versions in the past six months. Even if they are updating it to fix bugs, it's hard to keep pace with the change when you have 800 or more Palo Alto devices that you now need to update and upgrade.

We try to follow version minus one or two for security reasons. To keep pace with the changes, it takes us nearly six months as we have to check with the business, arrange downtime, and count and cover all devices.

These upgrades aren't just little fixes either. Whenever there is a new release, it requires an OS upgrade. It would be nice if there was some automation on the upgrades of the devices.

They need to do less bug-related releases and create versions that are stable for at least six months at a time. I don't find this issue in other solutions like Cisco, Check Point, FortiGate, or others. Those just provide a patch if there is a bug and we don't have to worry about downtime.

We've been using the solution for close to seven years at this point. It's definitely been about six years.

The solution is very, very stable. There aren't too many issues on it once you get it up and running. We consider it reliable.

The solution is very scalable. If a company needs to expand its services, it can do so rather easily.

We have different businesses running inside the organization. We have close to 800 devices, so it means about 800 different projects are using those devices. Each project has a firewall, so most of these, 80%, are on Palo Alto.

We use Check Point as well, however, we don't really like it as much. It's not as user friendly.

Prior to this solution, we were using the ASA products and then Check Point. Check Point is a little complicated. I can use Check Point on my perimeter firewall, but not on my overseas businesses. That's what makes Palo Alto is more user friendly. I can use the GUI to do everything due to the fact that I don't need a skilled person to work on the Palo Alto. On Check Point, I have to go to CLA and do all the changes. 

 It's easy to upgrade or to do anything with the Palo Alto. Technically it's quite sound. It's dynamic, scalable, and there's a lot of things that can be done easily. Plus, I don't need an extremely experienced person to work on Palo Alto. Anybody with two or three years of experience can easily work on a Palo Alto device.

The initial setup is not complex. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment is easy and uncomplicated. It takes about an hour or so, if not less than an hour. It's pretty quick.

However, we have 800 or more devices. It takes about six months to deploy everything, especially if I have to do everything manually.

We have eight to ten people who manage deployment and maintenance.

We haven't used an integrator or reseller. We handled the implementation ourselves in-house.

In terms of licensing for Panorama and Palo Alto products, we have only the DMC cost and we are billed every year.

It's not overly expensive. It is comparatively okay if you look at other devices. Compared to the top three devices, pricing is okay due to the fact that you have multiple vendors who are selling firewalls and competing with each other for the same clients. 

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We have multiple variants of the solution's model. Currently, we are using 8.1.15-H. We also have some virtual firewalls that are recently in Tokyo. We are using close to around 800+ Palo Alto firewalls. 

We're currently developing our virtual firewalls and have them in different locations. 

It is not just Palo Alto. We have other devices as well, so we have close to around 1300 plus firewall devices.

I would recommend the solution to others.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If you need a perimeter type of device, Check Point may be a better option. However, for my businesses, I would choose Palo Alto due to its scalability and user-friendliness. It also has great security features. That said, if it didn't release so many new updates, I would rate it higher, simply due to the fact that so many upgrades requires a lot of work on our part.

We primarily use the solution for security.

The solution works on a single pane of glass, so we have a good overview of everything happening.

We can easily look at security alerts.

Our team has the option to make configuration changes at any given time.

There are excellent reporting capabilities within the product.

The setup is quite easy.

The pricing should be reconsidered. It's too high right now.

At times we have noticed that we get into issues where Panorama is going too slow or has other little problems. The performance can suffer occasionally.

I've worked with the solution for three to four years at this point. It's been a while now.

The solution is stable, aside from a few performance issues. We find it to be reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's not really buggy. It's pretty good.

The solution isn't too scalable. Organizations should keep this in mind if they are considering installing it.

We have about ten or more people on the team that make use of the solution. They're admins and they monitor it.

Technical support has been good so far. I'd say that we are satisfied with the service. They seem to be knowledgable and responsive.

The initial setup isn't too complex. It's pretty straightforward.

The production instances take about an hour or so. Deployment is fast.

We have ten admins that make sure the solution is working properly at any given time.

The pricing is too high for us. We'd like it to be more affordable.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with Palo Alto.

I'm not sure of which version of the solution I'm using. I've worked with many versions, including both newer and older ones.

We use multiple deployment models. We use both cloud and on-premises deployments.

In general, I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. It's worked well for us and we don't believe there's anything feature-wise that is really missing. 

I'd rate the solution, on a scale from one to ten, at an eight. Of course, if it was less expensive and had a more stable performance, I'd mark it higher.

It works as a centralized management solution for Palo Alto Networks firewalls. It allows administrators to manage all firewalls from a single interface, reducing the time and effort required for configuration. Panorama also provides pre-configurations and allows for easy deployment of configuration rules to multiple firewalls. Administrators can also leverage Panorama to change smart IPS rules to Panorama IPS rules, allowing for customization and flexibility in managing security signatures. It also simplifies the process of performing upgrades and complex tasks, making it a valuable tool for efficient firewall management.

If a large company uses Panorama as a log collector, it may require setting up multiple local collector devices due to potential limitations in handling firewall logs. It would be beneficial to improve the capabilities of Panorama to handle logs more efficiently, potentially reducing the need for additional local collectors. Adding more predefined dashboards as features would enhance the monitoring and reporting capabilities. The iOPS tools, which are currently offered separately, could be integrated into Panorama to eliminate the need for an additional dashboard or GUI.

I have been working with it for nearly four years.

It is a stable and reliable solution.

They offer two types of support: Partner Enabled Support and Premium Support. With Partner Enabled Support, partners can open cases with distributors who then relay them to Palo Alto. This process can be time-consuming, leading to customer dissatisfaction. Premium Support allows customers to directly open cases with Palo Alto, bypassing the distributor, but it comes at a higher cost. The majority of high-level clients opt for Partner Enabled Support, despite its drawbacks.

Positive

Among the various high-level firewalls that we previously used, including Check Point and Cisco, Palo Alto Networks Panorama stands out for its stability and ease of configuration. It provides a user-friendly interface that simplifies the process of managing firewall rules. 

Configuring firewall rules is generally straightforward and user-friendly. Certain advanced tasks, such as setting up local collectors and changing log types or indexing can be challenging for end-users. In such cases, assistance from partner companies or Palo Alto Support may be required.

Palo Alto products are generally priced higher compared to their competitors. Its higher price is justified by the reliability, scalability, and extensive feature set that is offered. 

The suitability of Palo Alto products and their pricing depends on the size and the requirements of the company. It would not be a good fit for smaller companies with a limited number of firewalls. For larger companies with multiple clusters or complex configurations, Palo Alto products are highly recommended due to their comprehensive range of features and capabilities. I would rate it nine out of ten.

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.