We performed a comparison between FireMon and Palo Alto Networks Panorama based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewall Security Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."FireMon decreases errors and misconfigurations by 10% that increase risk in our environment. That has to do a lot with the change reporting that is in place, but also with the built-in controls and custom controls that we have made. Those all decrease the errors that people naturally make on a day-to-day basis for firewall administration."
"The most valuable features are the security assessments and the ability to identify unused rules or objects."
"The technical support is very good. They've always been helpful."
"Compared to other applications, it is user-friendly. The appearance of the menus and titles is clear and they are easy to follow. Of course, it requires some experience through using it, to go through everything, but it is not very difficult. It is an easy application to use."
"The most valuable feature is the Firewall reviews for our company compliance."
"The most valuable feature is that everything is recorded in the historical logs, including the firewall rules, headcounts, object-level usage, and the rule documentation. The rule certification details are also there, which means that someone can be held accountable for a specific firewall rule."
"The SQL language is convenient to use. It allows us to process a bunch of criteria very quickly and narrows things down if there is an issue with the firewall. It's easy to do that with SQL queries."
"The automation that the platform provides to create tickets reduces human error and more generally, reduces the operational overhead."
"In Panorama, installing the policy, and pushing the policy, it's quite seamless."
"Technical support is quite helpful."
"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."
"I would improve the management. I need to view charts and traffic statistics, but the management console doesn't share that information with me."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama has good stability. I didn't see any instability from it, and its initial setup was straightforward."
"The firewall rules and policies are the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"What's most valuable in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is that it allows us to see the status on the network side, particularly on the endpoint, because we also use it for the internal network."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama has a lot of features."
"We have not used the Policy Planner but even so, we have identified areas of improvement with it during our testing. For example, it could be better when it comes to ease of integration or ease of policy automation. Another problem is that there is a console where it has too many options and is not very straightforward. Essentially, controlling it could be made more seamless."
"FireMon could improve its end-user practices. As an end user, I am just trying to catch up on all the alerts. There are so many, and you still have to go through them and document what was found."
"When it comes to real-time compliance management, something that is missing is alerting on certain, predefined controls. It would be good to have a predefined set of controls which, if not complied with in a newly set up rule, would create an alert for us. That is something that is missing, out-of-the-box."
"Our firewalls have multiple paths through them and FireMon falls short a little bit because it's not Palo Alto-centric. I don't think FireMon has kept up with where Palo Alto is at. They started out being Check Point-centric for years and they've never really fully embraced the nuances others, like Palo Alto or Fortinet, have. They don't handle a lot of the capabilities and attributes that Palo Alto does yet. They're working on it. They're getting there."
"We have had some stability issues that are affecting operations. We rely heavily on this solution and if it isn't working then we have to create rules manually."
"FireMon could be easier to use and flexibility regarding reporting could be improved."
"I think that having a more open system and providing documentation for it would be helpful for users like us. We are pretty adept and can navigate through the Linux software that the on-premises FireMon is based on. It would help us in the long run."
"I don't like that it comes with bugs, constant issues, and limited functionality."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be better."
"We have had some issues in the past because integrating a new device is not intuitive."
"Reporting might be an area to improve. It can provide reporting or some sort of graphical representation of your environment."
"There is a need to improve the upgrade process. When we are upgrading the solution we are facing some issues with Elasticsearch services. Every time we upgrade it takes a long time to become stable."
"The central firewall management could be better."
"The customer support needs to be better."
"It is very hard to understand the platform. It is not easy and user-friendly. You need a lot of experience to use Panorama. It is very complex, and you must know exactly what to do. I would like to have a more user-friendly product. FortiManager is comparatively very easy to use. It would be good if Panorama improves in terms of user-friendliness. It is also harder to use than Palo Alto Firewalls."
"I would like to see remote VPN, like the Cisco client."
FireMon is ranked 3rd in Firewall Security Management with 18 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 4th in Firewall Security Management with 45 reviews. FireMon is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of FireMon writes "We have made massive improvements to firewall management and firewall hygiene". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Easy to manage with a straightforward initial setup and good stability". FireMon is most compared with Tufin, AlgoSec, Skybox Security Suite, RedSeal and ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer, whereas Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Tufin, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud and Azure Firewall Manager. See our FireMon vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama report.
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.
