Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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.

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 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. 

We provide Palo Alto Networks Panorama to customers in the education and government niches, for example, for state and defense accounts. The product is for logging and log management.

I found logging and management features the most valuable in Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

Another good feature of the product is that it lets you define global firewall policies and templates. For example, if you have standard procedures, you can create a single template and apply it to all your firewalls. This feature is attractive to many users.

I also like that Palo Alto Networks Panorama is easy to configure and manage.

Storage in Palo Alto Networks Panorama needs improvement.

My company also experienced deployment issues when the product was first installed, particularly when binding with the firewall. It's not as user-friendly because not everyone can deploy it without some knowledge.

Updating Palo Alto Networks Panorama was also a bit challenging when upgrading your firewall, so that's another area for improvement.

I've worked with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the last three or four years.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a stable product, but sometimes, the patch creates some issues, so it's a nine out of ten.

Regarding scalability, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a scalable solution. You can scale it whenever you want. You can add storage. Scaling it is easy, so it's a nine out of ten for me.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama technical support is good. Regarding response time, it depends if you're getting partner support or direct support from Palo Alto Networks.

Sometimes you need to wait a maximum of four hours to receive support, and sometimes, it just takes half an hour. It also depends on the type of ticket you open. If it's a critical ticket, you'll get a call from technical support within fifteen to twenty minutes.

I also like that Palo Alto Networks extended support to distributors, where you can raise a ticket directly with a distributor.

I've used AlgoSec, and compared to Palo Alto Networks Panorama, AlgoSec supports other OEM firewalls, which means you can configure Fortinet, Palo Alto, Cisco, and other firewalls on it. In contrast, Palo Alto Networks Panorama only supports Palo Alto Networks devices, which is a drawback.

Otherwise, if you compare Palo Alto Networks Panorama with other products, such as Fortinet and Checkpoint, feature-wise, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is more complete. In contrast, Checkpoint and Fortinet are only thirty to thirty-five percent complete.

If not for the OEM firewall restrictions, I'd rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama as ten out of ten compared to other products.

The initial setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be pretty easy if you've had some training. It's not like you can go and do it and find it easy without a guide or training. Before implementing the product, you'll need at least one to two weeks of training because it'll be complicated to go hands-on without some Palo Alto Networks Panorama training.

Pricing for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is always high. If you're going to sell the product, you always have to talk about the technology because it should be about the solution rather than the price, or else you'll lose potential customers.

My company works with Palo Alto Networks Panorama, including other Palo Alto Networks solutions, such as MDR, NGFW, and SOAR.

My company is a system integrator rather than the end customer. My company provides and sells Palo Alto Networks Panorama to end customers.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is deployed on-premises, particularly by customers in the government.

A state data center where my company deployed Palo Alto Networks Panorama had fifteen thousand to eighteen thousand users. The number of firewalls was eighty, with two Palo Alto Networks systems.

My rating for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is nine out of ten.

I use the firewall to protect my entire enterprise network. 

I like the quality of this product, and it performs. It's the best solution in the IT business. 

I would improve the management. I need to view charts and traffic statistics, but the management console doesn't share that information with me.

I would also improve the integration with other solutions. 

I have been a partner of this solution for five years.

The stability of the solution is good. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The technical support is very good. We contact them for support with the solution or if we have problems in the entire network. I would rate the technical support as an eight out of ten. 

Positive

My IT team handled the setup and it was very easy because they have the needed skills. We use three people for deployment and maintenance: one engineer and two technicians. 

I would recommend that new users study the product. I think people should use it because it is very easy to understand.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

The solution is used for VPN, and Firewall protection.

I find the portal, and the filter function to be the most valuable features. I found it easy to learn how to pull information from the logs.

I would like to see more real-world testing before updates and patches are released in the live environment. The last VPN update that was released caused a problem that kicked users out. I would also like to see better documentation. The current documentation is not detailed enough.

I have been using the solution for a month and our organization has been using the solution for about four years.

The solution for the most part appears to be stable. I haven't had any major concerns.

The implementation was through a vendor.

Although I don't have direct knowledge of the setup cost I believe it is mid-range. There is also an additional cost for the VPN service.

I would rate the solution a six out of ten.

I was not part of the initial setup so I don't know how straightforward it was. 

The solution is used across six businesses for both the service and the workstations.

We use Palo Alto firewalls, for our perimeter security. It is our perimeter security product, which we use as our perimeter security firewall. As a firewall should, protect us and our organization at the perimeter.

It's an excellent product. It's doing its job, and we like it. The ease of use is quite nice. Everything about the reporting and everything about Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good.

Everyone, I suppose, would like the price to be improved. Price is always a good thing to change.

There is always room for improvement in anything. But I couldn't really comment on that off the top of my head.

In terms of updates, I believe everything is in order. That is not an issue for me.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for five months.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 100 percent stable. We have it running in HA status, obviously, for failover, but It's extremely stable. There are no complaints.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable.

We have a large organization. We are a retail company, with approximately 4000 users who are protected by this firewall.

I have never contacted technical support personally. We do outsource our support to another company. When there are issues, they are responsible for resolving them.

We use their product called, Cortex XDR.

We use an onboard, a custom CRM platform that we created in-house. At the moment, we do not use a commercially available one.

I have been with my current company for five months. And we were using checkpoints as our perimeter security when I first joined, and we moved to the Palo Alto Panorama platform. And it's a fantastic product; we love it. As an organization, it has been very well written.

I wasn't involved in the installation because, as I previously stated, I just started working for my current organization. 

I wasn't directly involved in the transition, but it went smoothly.

I couldn't comment on price as I am not really involved in the commercial side of the business.

I am not aware of the licensing fees.

I am aware of XSOAR, but we haven't had any dealing with it yet. We are on a journey to potentially onboard that within our environment. But, at this point, we don't have, the budget for it.

It's doing its job for us. Since we cut it out, from Checkpoint to Palo Alto, everything has improved noticeably. I recommend it.

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