Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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.

We primarily use it for firewall monitoring, reviews, and policy-level monitoring.

Threat prevention and traffic monitoring are the most valuable features for us. We use them the most.

There is room for improvement in response time for tech support.

I have been using this solution for three years. 

The stability is good, so I would rate it around nine.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The customer service and support team is okay because the response time depends on the case. For example, it can take a lot of time if they don't have a readily available solution.

If compared with Cisco, I find Panorama is better and easier to use.

Our technical team did the setup for us.

Overall, I would rate the solution a 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 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.

Our primary use case is to have a centralized console for gateways.

It has shared profiles for all gateways. If I do not have Panorama, I need to create a separate profile for each and every gateway by logging into that particular gateway, but with Panorama, I can create a shared profile and just push it down to each and every gateway connected to it.

In our version, there is no feature to transfer or upload a database of third-party vulnerabilities or signatures so that Panorama can convert them into its own database. This kind of feature might already have come in version 10.

I have been using this solution for around four years.

As of now, I am not seeing any limitation in terms of technicality, deployment, and functionality. In terms of licensing, depending on the number of gateways or serial numbers, I need to purchase the license, which is not really a limitation.

They are good. Whenever there are some issues or bugs and we are not able to trace them out, we reach out to them. They provide the required support.

It was straightforward. The gateway integration with Panorama was also a pretty straightforward configuration for us. 

We deployed it site-wise. For each HAPS, it took us around two hours to take an existing production gateway behind Panorama.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is a good solution. If any environment has multiple gateways, such as 50 or 100 gateways, it is good to have Panorama. If you have only one or two gateways of Palo Alto, you can easily manage them individually without having Panorama.

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

The solution is primarily used as a firewall reporting feature.

The dashboards are very good on Palo Alto. They offer a centralized dashboard for managers as well.

The solution needs to improve its pricing model.

Panorama needs to work on its configuration issues.

They should also focus on firewall management. Many clients have multiple firewalls, so Palo Alto should offer better management of them. They could model themselves off of AlgoSec, or maybe FireMon which are other very good firewall management tools.

The solution is stable. Palo Alto, in general, is pretty good. 

The solution is very scalable. We manage about 12 firewalls. The maximum might be 100.

Support from Palo Alto is very good. You can get it from the distributor or from Palo Alto directly.

The setup is generally straightforward. Deployment times vary, according to the client's environment and if they have multiple branches, etc. It can take anywhere from one to three days. After that, you have to fine-tune a few items, and that can take another two or three weeks. So the entire deployment process, depending on the organization, can take anywhere from three days to three weeks. Maintenence only takes one person, once again, depending on the setup of the company itself.

Most of our clients deal with the on-premises deployment solution, as cloud solutions in Egypt can occasionally be insecure.

I would advise anyone looking to implement the solution really focus on sizing before beginning the implementation.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

It is a management tool, and we use it to manage many devices at many locations. 

Templates and the possibility to apply a configuration to many devices at the same time are the most valuable features. We are able to create templates, and we don't need to go to each firewall to make changes. We can make changes in Panorama, and it automatically applies those changes to all those firewalls on which we want to apply the changes. It provides centralized management.

It communicates with remote devices, and sometimes, there is a little bit of delay during its communication with remote devices. There should be real-time communication or updates from the manager to devices.

In Panorama and Palo Alto firewalls, I would like to have a traffic simulator. They have packet capture for troubleshooting, but it would help if they can provide a traffic simulator so that we can simulate the traffic and see the route the traffic is taking and get feedback about whether it is blocked or it is able to pass.

I have been using this solution for maybe a year and a half.

I don't have big deployments. It works and is stable for what I have, and I don't have concerns.

I don't have experience in big deployments. In terms of its users, our network engineers have access to it. We have less than 10 people.

I don't have any experience with their tech support.

Its main competitor is Cisco with the next-generation firewalls and FTD. They are managed by FMC, which is a little bit similar to Panorama and firewalls. There are some similarities, but there are also some different approaches. In general, they both are using the same standards. One major difference is that Palo Alto uses security zones, but Cisco doesn't have this feature, which makes Palo Alto better.

It is not so straightforward, but it is also not complex. It is acceptable.

I would advise others to completely evaluate the requirements and build properly with hierarchical templates. This will make it more scalable and manageable in the future.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of 10.