Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

I worked for a system integrator, and some of our clients  asked us to manage their firewalls. They have a large number of sites all around the world. One of them has got 25 sites, and the other one has got 13 sites. So, we deployed Panorama in our DataCenter, and we managed the gateway for our customers with Panorama.

The management and the deployment features are most valuable. We can easily deploy and manage the devices. We can do fast deployments without moving from our office and by just providing a short description to the end-user about how to install the physical device.
With Panorama you are able to manage a large number of firewall and to simplify change and incident management process .
With Panorama, firewall rules may be  managed mixing preconfigured templates (common on all/some firewalls) and more specific rules
From Panorama Dashboard you have an immediate view about the status of all the firewall deployed. 

It is quite hard to understand the platform. It is not easy and user-friendly. You need some experience and the proper technincal training  to use Panorama without risks.
It is very complex, and you must know exactly what to do.
The bigger problem is that Panorama Dashboard Logic is quite different than PanOS firewall Dashboard.
The second problem is that you dont have wizards or template .You need to build your enviroment from zero on your own incurring in possibile configuration or logic errors.

I would like to have a more user-friendly and simple to use product .
For istance FortiManager is comparatively much more easier  to use and understand.
Palo Alto Firewall too are Really easier to manage than Panorama. 

Panorama Logging and reporting features are quite good ( like PaloAlto Firewall) but not the best on the market ( for istance Checkpoint SmartEvent is still far better) 

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is quite stable based on my experience. I did not have any big issues regarding the operating system.

It is quite easy to scale with Panorama. It is more for a medium or big enterprise. To manage an environment from Panorama, you must have people with high skills. Its cost is not suitable for a couple of gateways only.

We have three levels of Palo Alto support. I also have email support in the Italian language. They provide very good support levels.

I did not install Panorama from scratch. Palo Alto Gateway is quite easy to deploy and has a decent setup.

In terms of maintenance, it doesn't require too much effort. We usually check the best practices from their website. We update the Panorama server according to the best practices and the compatibility with the gateway.

Panorama price is quite high (comparing with other Firewall management suites) 

We have used it in the past for logging and reporting, but now we have another third-party product to manage the logs.

I would recommend Panorama for managing a large-sized or medium-sized network. To manage a center with a lot of devices or cloud services, Panorama is useful. 

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

We primarily use the product for security purposes. 

Security is the most valuable aspect of this solution. We find that the security level is very high.

The user interface is very good. it's easy to navigate and very user-friendly.

The installation process is very simple.  

The product is scalable. 

The stability has been good.

We have found the technical support to be very helpful.

The configuration could be a bit better. For us, it's a critical aspect. We've noticed Cisco may be better in this regard. 

We only recently upgraded the solution within the last six months.

The stability of Palo Alto is good. We don't have issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. Users can expand it if they need to.

Technical support from Palo Alto has been very good. We are quite satisfied with the service we receive. 

The installation process is not overly complex or difficult. It's very easy and quite straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with it.

We've looked at Cisco and noted that configurations seem to be easier using that product as opposed to Palo Alto. That said, Palo Alto is okay and still manageable. 

We are just customers and end-users.

I would rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We have been quite pleased with its capabilities.

At this time, I would definitely recommend the solution to other companies and organizations. 

We have M-100 Panorama, and we also have two from the 5000 series. They record all the traffic that goes through the two firewalls.

We are using the latest version. 

It is great that the records go back to 30 days. 

Palo Alto's user interface is much more user-friendly than other platforms.

There were a few bugs a couple of years into it. There was a big bug where it had trouble communicating with the two main boxes.

I have been using this solution for five or six years.

It once had trouble communicating with the two main boxes, but other than that, it has been pretty solid. We used their tech support to fix the issues.

It is straightforward to scale. Three people access it on a day-to-day basis.

Their tech support has always been great. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

We've been using this solution for as long as I can remember.

It is pretty straightforward. It is not very complex.

It is pretty reasonable as compared to other companies.

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

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 have five to six firewalls, and we manage those firewalls with Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

One valuable feature is centralized management. We are able to manage it centrally for two to three remote offices, our head office and our data centers. So, it is very simple to manage.

The second valuable feature is that it stores a lot of the logs. When we require it, we can get the dump, and we can get the logs.

Palo Alto must provide a cloud-based feature or solution.

The initial setup requires expertise and can be a bit complex.

I would like to see the management be a bit more simple than it is currently.

I've been using this solution for around two and a half years.

I find Panorama to be a stable solution.

As for scalability, I tried to add on a Prisma Access plugin, and it was able to take the load.

There are five firewalls behind Panorama, and there are 200-300 users behind these five firewalls.

We have made calls to and raised issues with technical support, and they have been responsive.

The initial setup is a bit complex and requires expertise. Configuring a firewall is a bit easier than configuring multiple firewalls at a time through Panorama. To create device groups and templates, and to manage everything is a bit difficult the first time.

We have a yearly license. The cost is not that high and not that cheap either.

If you have multiple firewalls, like around 10 to 15 firewalls, then you should go for Palo Alto Networks Panorama. If you do not have more than 10 firewalls, I would not recommend that you go with it.

If I were to rate it on a scale from one to ten, I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama at seven.

We have firewalls in different locations and we want to manage them centrally to see all the information available. The best way to do this is by using this solution, we are able to monitor, manage, and have visibility of the networks.

The most valuable aspect of this solution is the ability to manage our devices centrally. Additionally, we can monitor the workforce connections, receive reports, and use the backup feature.

There are times when we are backing up a device centrally, we do not get a full backup. We are able to do a full backup of all the devices but when we attempt to backup a single device, it only does the backup of a few presets and not the full configuration.

In the future, they could improve by providing better management of the devices, such as bandwidth. 

I have been using the solution within the last 12 months.

The stability is good.

The solution is scalable. You are able to go through this solution and download from the internet upgrades to push them to the certain devices that need it.

The technical support is good. I receive a resolution from the technical support whenever I have dealt with them.

We sometimes have difficulty with the deployment configuration.

The solution requires a license and the price is higher than competitors. It would be better for them to decrease the price or maximize the discount.

I would recommend this solution to others if you have multiple sites and you want to manage them centrally.

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

We primarily use the solution in order to protect our perimeter. It's used for security purposes.

The product is set up so that we can handle more than one firewall. We can handle a bunch all in one application. It makes it simpler that everything is more centralized.

The firewall rules and policies are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

The interface and dashboard are quite good. 

We haven't had any issues with the management of the solution.

The product offers good technical support and documentation.

We haven't had issues with scalability or performance. It's been very stable over the years.

I don't recall the initial setup giving us any troubles.

I haven't come across any issues with the product. Overall, it's been very positive.

I don't recall missing any features. It's a fairly complete solution.

The product could offer more integration with other solutions.

I've been dealing with the solution for five or six years at this point. It's been a while. It's not new to our company.

The solution is quite stable. There are no glitches or bugs. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is reliable.

We are currently in a hardware upgrade and I hope that it's very seamless. It is scalable; we checked the hardware and I do not expect to upgrade again due to the current hardware performance being really good.

We've connected with technical support a few times. It was normal, much like our experience with other vendors. They are average and provide the support we require. We are satisfied so far with their level of attention.

I also have experience with various firewalls, such as Checkpoint, Palo Alto, and Cisco.

The initial setup was not handled by myself. It was handled by a colleague. However, I do not recall them struggling with the implementation. The setup seemed to be quite straightforward. It's not overly complex, from what I witnessed.

My colleague handled the implementation.

I can't directly speak to the price of the solution. It's not an aspect of the solution I handle.

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with the organization.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's been very useful for our organization and we've been quite happy with its capabilities.

It is a next-generation firewall, and therefore you can use it for a lot of requirements, and lots of solutions. I would highly recommend it.

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.