We performed a comparison between Cisco Defense Orchestrator and Palo Alto Networks Panorama based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about AlgoSec, Tufin, Palo Alto Networks and others in Firewall Security Management."The bulk changes feature is definitely the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature is the Intrusion prevention."
"The ability to see the uptimes on the different VPNs that we have configured for site-to-site."
"There are a lot of templates that are already built-in. They give you quick-to-create and quick-to-apply policies that are typically a little more complicated for people."
"The initial setup was straightforward. We spun up the VM onsite. We generated the key that it needed to talk to the Cloud Orchestrator. After that, as I started adding devices, it was relatively quick and easy."
"With Cisco Defense Orchestrator, we can manage the complete Cisco Security solution. It provides a simple and centralized way to manage all products."
"Cisco Defense Orchestrator has useful guides for the steps that need to follow by users."
"If we have a firewall go down, I can hop into CDO, pull the latest configuration off and apply it. That's really good. It helps save time."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama is stable."
"Using this solution means that you can store logs for longer periods, up to perhaps two years, depending on your attached storage."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its ease of use."
"All of the reports and events from different locations can be managed centrally."
"The solution is suitable for all sized businesses."
"I like the quality of this product, and it performs. It's the best solution in the IT business."
"The interface is very easy to use. You can do most jobs from one single console."
"Networks Panorama has improved our organizational security"
"I'd like CDO to be the one-stop-shop where we could do all the configurations easily. It would be nice, for ASA upgrades, if we could do them from a central repository and not have to reach out to Cisco. That would be a definite plus."
"The main thing that would useful for us would the logging and monitoring. I have to check it out, to get the beta, because I don't have access to them... I wanted CDO to be a central place so where I could do everything but right now I don't think that's possible. I really don't want to go back and forth between this and FMC. Maybe the logging portion, when I look at it, will give me some similarities."
"If I make a change locally to the firewall, CDO gives an alarm or an error message and says there's a change in compliance: "The firewall has this configuration but the last time it was compiled it had that configuration." That view of new changes versus the old could be better... I had to log in manually, locally on the firewall, to check which version, which configuration was actually running. I couldn't see it in CDO."
"They need to work on the user interface. It needs to be improved to make it more user-friendly."
"There could be some slight improvements to navigation. In some of the navigation you've got to go back to be able to get into where you need to be once you've made a change. If I make a change, I've then got to go back to submit and send the change."
"It would be a better product if it incorporated device control for third-party products easily."
"CDO doesn't have a report, an official report that I can check daily. It has another module called FTD, but it doesn't have that specifically for ASA. In the reporting, there are a lot of things that aren't there. There is also room for improvement in the daily monitoring."
"I've found dozens of bugs over the year we've been using it. The more I use it for different things, the more problems I find... Most of the problems have to do with the user interface. A lot of thought and work has gone into the back-end component to make the product do what it's intended to do, but the way it is presented for use hasn't gotten nearly as much thought to make it smart and bug-free."
"A potential improvement for Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be a more competitive pricing structure."
"The central firewall management could be better."
"The solution's utilization of network ports makes things as complex as possible."
"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."
"It could be easier to manage. In the future, it should be much easier because it's not very easy to manage. So in the next release, I think it should be much easier to manage, especially in the first configuration. It could also be more stable."
"We have had some issues in the past because integrating a new device is not intuitive."
"Aside from pricing, I don't have any issues with Panorama."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be better."
Earn 20 points
Cisco Defense Orchestrator is ranked 14th in Firewall Security Management while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 3rd in Firewall Security Management with 80 reviews. Cisco Defense Orchestrator is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Defense Orchestrator writes "Provides visibility into entire infrastructure and bulk changes save time and resources". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Built-in proxy with the ability to maintain your own policies". Cisco Defense Orchestrator is most compared with AlgoSec, Tufin Orchestration Suite and Azure Firewall Manager, whereas Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud, Tufin Orchestration Suite and Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center.
See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.
We monitor all Firewall Security Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
