Palo Alto Networks VM-Series Reviews

I've mainly worked with the VM-Series, and a few features have been really effective for threat prevention in our networks, like McAfee training, Accountant ID, and apps ID. These features integrate well with our existing environments and tools, such as Panorama. 

 The VM-Series scalability is fast and easy to implement, improving our security posture as our Azure network grows. The only minor issue we've faced is with the apps ID configuration, which requires specific matching for application filtering. Tools like Loopback help us identify open or denied flows between two firewalls and manage the servers effectively. The Palo Alto system easily identifies rules and objects within roles, making maintenance straightforward.

No other major concerns, just the specific issue with Apps ID configuration. Otherwise, overall stability, VPN, IPSec, VRF, and flow management with the VM-Series have been very stable and reliable.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for 2 years.

I've had a positive experience with Palo Alto's support. They usually respond within a few hours, which is satisfactory

Positive

In my experience, Palo Alto and Fortinet offer similar quality and high-level security compared to other vendors like Cisco and Forcepoint. They stand out in terms of reliability and security features. Other vendors may not match their level of performance and security.

It is easy to maintain because we have various tools to manage and monitor the system. 

The pricing for Palo Alto is quite high compared to FortiGate, which is more affordable. I don't have the exact figures as my manager handles that, but from my research, Palo Alto's licensing costs are significantly higher.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series as an eight overall. My recommendation for others considering this tool would be to ensure they have the budget for it, as it can be expensive compared to alternatives like FortiGate. Also, they should be prepared to understand and document their application metrics thoroughly to implement the firewall correctly. 

We use the solution for inter-VPC traffic segmentation and inspection. I also use it for external interfaces.

The product gives us the ability to do malware detection and file inspection.

The tool provides ease of use for GUI management and deployment. The product provides more visibility into our traffic. It also helps with troubleshooting a bit of high-level next-generation platforms. The auto-update feature of App-ID is valuable. Traffic monitoring, threat monitoring, and dashboards are the most impactful for our network security.

Having visibility and alerts and being able to react to them is valuable. The integration of VM-Series with cloud services has helped us a lot to streamline our security operations. The solution has ease of use. The web interface and the traffic monitoring are more centralized.

The cost must be improved. The tool is very costly.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine or ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight or nine out of ten.

The technical support is really good. I rate the technical support a nine or ten out of ten.

We deploy AWS VPC as a virtual appliance, as a security VPC. The initial deployment was moderately easy. It is not complex, though.

I have used Juniper. Palo Alto’s next-generation features are better than Juniper’s.

The cloud service providers are also coming up with similar features. It can get really competitive for Palo Alto. People who want to use the solution must engage the system engineer for the deployment, vetting process, and initial implementation. Overall, I rate the product a nine to ten out of ten.

The solution is used to protect some servers and access their traffic in a virtualization environment.

The most valuable features of the solution are its stability, ease of implementation, ease of operation, and security.

It is not very easy to scale up the solution.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for one year.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s technical support is very good.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup is very easy.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series can be deployed in a day or two.

The solution is a little bit expensive compared to other vendors.

I would recommend the solution to other users because it is a good firewall.

Overall, I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a nine out of ten.

Our corporate clients use the product to secure cloud environments.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series's most valuable feature is the visibility of the environment.

The product's AIOps process needs improvement.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for two years.

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten.

We have 5000 Palo Alto Networks VM-Series users as our clients. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

I rate the initial setup process a nine. It takes a few hours to complete.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series pricing an eight out of ten.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a nine out of ten.

We use this product to secure our entire network, for ZTNA structure, and for VPN purposes, allowing access to our servers behind the firewall.

Using this product has increased our security and has given us much better results in terms of security scans.

Palo Alto embeds machine learning into the core of the firewall to provide online real-time attack prevention, and I would rate that capability an 8 out of 10. It's definitely effective in terms of securing our network against threats that are able to evolve and morph rapidly.

This solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all of the security capabilities, although we are not using parts of it. For example, we don't use the configuration tools like Panorama.

The most valuable feature is the CLI.

We have the firewall configured for zero-day signatures, which is very important to us. We must be HIPAA and PCI compliant, which means that we need those signatures immediately.

There is no noticeable trade-off between security and network performance. In fact, so far, we've not seen any negative network performance with it. We're very impressed in that regard.

The web interface, especially when committing changes, remains a bit slower than I would like, but it has improved over the years. Reboots for the VM series do take longer than I would have expected. 

I have been working with the Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for almost 5 years.

This product is very stable. We have had zero problems with stability.

The scalability is fantastic. We're using the lowest-end product right now, and I don't foresee when we'll have to upgrade. We have a long way where we can continue to scale up.

We currently have multiple people that use it for VPN purposes, to access our servers behind the firewall. It is not used nearly as extensively as it should be. However, in the future we will start flowing all of our internet traffic through it.

We're all working remotely, and we're going to be connecting through the firewall. This means that our traffic is going to greatly increase, meaning that our usage will also increase. We'll also be using many more of the features.

The technical support from Palo Alto is good, overall. However, their response times could be a little quicker.

We have not really had any big complaints with the technical support and I would rate them a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Prior to using Palo Alto, we were using an on-premises solution by Juniper. When we switched from onsite to the cloud, we changed products.

We made the switch because Juniper became unbearable regarding complexity and performance. It was getting very bad; we couldn't manage it well, and the performance was quite poor. 

The initial setup can be quite complex. There is a steep learning curve and we failed at it a few times before we were able to put a production machine into place.

Our final deployment took between three and four hours.

Our in-house team was responsible for the deployment.

We have absolutely seen a return on our investment. We are definitely more secure. With the features that are in Palo Alto, we do not have to worry about people busting into our network. Even just out of the box, with the base features, it's very solid. The default configurations are quite secure.

Our return on investment comes from the fact that no longer need to spend hours monitoring our network the way we did before. We've saved man hours and we've saved stress. I am unable put a monetary value to that, but that would be the return.

This is not the cheapest firewall but it's not the most expensive of the options on the market.

The new licensing structure is a little difficult to understand at first, but with the right thought put into it, would like save some money. 

Beyond Palo Alto, we evaluated two or three other products. Two of them that I can recall are Fortinet and the Microsoft Azure Firewall.

We did some extensive reviews and some extensive testing and what we found is that for the price, Palo Alto gave us the best options. It had the best set of security features. It wasn't the cheapest product but it was the best solution that fit our requirements.

We have not yet implemented the DNS security features but we will in the future. 

If one of my colleagues at another company were to say that they were just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would suggest that they be careful. Palo Alto has a great balance. It's not super expensive compared to other options on the market, and it's quite quick when it comes to throughput and performance.

In summary, this is a good product but I do suggest that people shop around a little bit.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I have completed ten projects. The solution is used for network security, application control, and enforcement of policies on end-user devices.

The solution enables organizations to enforce policies. We can control every endpoint that is connected to the network.

The vendor must improve the way it advertises and markets the product.

I have been using the solution for four years.

I did not find any bugs in the tool. However, we'll face some issues if we do not configure it properly.

Almost 25 customers in Riyadh migrated from Juniper to Palo Alto this year. Before buying the product, we must know the number of users who will be using it. We must buy the model that best suits our needs.

Some people do not know how to open a case with the support team. When a customer contacts the support team, the team must help the customer to open a case. After a case is opened, the support team must respond within 15 to 20 minutes. However, the team takes three to four hours to respond. There is no proper support channel to follow up on cases.

Deploying a firewall is not easy until we have a basic knowledge of routing and security. If we have the knowledge, we can find the proper document on the website and do it easily. We should know the basic configuration. The deployment process is user-friendly. We can configure it easily.

The product is cheaper than the on-premise version.

When compared with FortiGate, Palo Alto has more security products. However, Palo Alto did not publish the security profile for the end-users or partners. They must explain to their end users why they are better than FortiGate.

People considering implementing the product must consider investing in the on-premise solution instead. If someone has a good experience with VMs, I suggest they choose VM, as it is cheaper than on-premises. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We are using it on Azure Cloud for our internal systems, where we have set up our internal workloads. We are using it as a perimeter firewall.

We are using it because our internal workflows are on the cloud. Almost everything in our production and development uses these instances. We are using it extensively for conducting reports of the development environment. It is working fine.

It improved all compliance activities. We can close open cases. Compared to other firewalls in these cases, it improved our score on the compliance side.

We are using the complete box. We are mostly using the security services and firewall rules in Panorama.

We need to look at different variables and granular policies of various tools. This makes it easy to understand.

We use Palo Alto’s Panorama centralized management system. We have an on-prem firewall where Panorama is very good for pulling logs in from the cloud so we can see what is going on. It gives us visibility into that as well as showing us what attacks are coming in.

Palo Alto’s Panorama centralized management system simplifies our security posture based on our requirements. Instead of manually pulling logs, then generating them into readable formats, it gives us the console in a readable format to view.

We have been using it for the last two years.

Stability has so far been good. We monitor the resources on the firewall to determine if there will be any spikes on the CPU, RAM utilization, or the load of the firewall. Though, we are yet not putting much load on it. 

I don't think that scaling will be a problem since we can adjust the VM-Series model that we want.

I have around 100 instances protected behind this device.

The customer support is good. They are able to give fast, readily-available solutions upon the creation of a help ticket. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

Positive

We did a fresh setup for this, but it was pretty easy. We could easily integrate with the VM-Series, then just create our business servers. We were able to do this with the help of the tech team.

It took around seven to eight hours to deploy this solution and configure it to our environment.

We feel that the setup was complex. So, we asked the tech team about the setup process. They explained how to deploy it in the right way, which made it very simple. Once we had a checklist of what to do, it was pretty easy to deploy.

Deploying Panorama has saved us a lot of time. When any incidents happen, our people are comfortable going to the Panorama logs and view the incident report to see what happened.

Initially, pricing was high. Later on, we were able to negotiate the pricing and get something that fits our budget.

The solution provides protection and there wasn't an additional cost involved, in terms of security.

We evaluated FortiGate, Cisco, and the stuff that we are using. Compared to other products, we found it a very useful part of our compliance requirements and liked its format on the graphical interface. It is also a more secure firewall compared to other existing ones in the market. Based on our evaluation, it matched our compliance requirements.

Cisco is pretty complex in nature to deploy. It is helpful to have a skilled person with at least two years of experience. 

We are happy with their features for how we are using it and what we have deployed.

I would recommend giving the solution a try and see the difference between it and your existing firewalls. Give it a shot and see the difference.

In the firewall market, it is the number one product right now. I would rate it as 10 out of 10.

We use the product on our Azure network firewalls. 

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is a complex product to work with. 

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is stable. 

I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. We have 100 users for the product. 

We encountered quality issues over support. 

Neutral

The tool's deployment is simple. 

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is an expensive product but the best one in the market. 

I rate the product a ten out of ten.