We performed a comparison between FireMon Security Manager 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."The most valuable feature is the reporting capability because everything that we do is a result of our being able to query a report, based on our environment and our PCI compliance efforts."
"Firewall auditing is very important. We also use the solution for rule traffic analysis, traffic flow discovery and hidden/shadow rules within over 100 firewalls spanning five different brands."
"The ease of use is the most valuable feature. There are a lot of products out there, but the ability to navigate through and use Firemon is very good."
"The technical support is very good. They've always been helpful."
"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."
"We also use the solution’s SASE integration capabilities to extend security policy management for cloud firewall management. It helps in creating one consistent rule across multiple platforms and it improves accuracy."
"The most valuable feature is the Firewall reviews for our company compliance."
"What I like about FireMon is the ability to track changes made by network engineers on the network."
"The most valuable feature is WildFire."
"The ability to manage a large number of firewalls from a single point is most valuable."
"On the one or two occasions that I had to make use of technical support, I felt it to be pretty good."
"The interface is very easy to use. You can do most jobs from one single console."
"It is great that the records go back to 30 days."
"The solution is very stable. It's reliable. We don't experience bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash. It works as expected."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama is stable."
"I like its flexibility."
"We're working on implementing FireMon with our ticketing system service now. Having that would be an improvement."
"A phone app would be nice. This is the reason why it is not perfect yet."
"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."
"We are looking for more integration with SIEM and other tools."
"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."
"FireMon could be made more user-friendly when it comes to creating filters or conducting traffic analysis."
"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."
"The AWS integration is still not mature for us to use. It is just not ready for our use case for AWS connectivity. Therefore, it does not provide us with a single pane of glass for our cloud environments, because we can't manage our cloud environment with the tool."
"We have had some issues in the past because integrating a new device is not intuitive."
"The initial setup can be complex."
"The ease of use of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is an area for improvement. Another downside is that you need a lot of comprehension to understand what it is."
"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."
"Price is probably one of the biggest things that we struggle with, specifically with Palo, and that's across their whole portfolio."
"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."
"Customer support can improve."
"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."
FireMon Security Manager is ranked 4th in Firewall Security Management with 52 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 3rd in Firewall Security Management with 80 reviews. FireMon Security Manager is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of FireMon Security Manager writes "Makes compliance much easier compared to doing it manually, and automates policy changes across environments". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Built-in proxy with the ability to maintain your own policies". FireMon Security Manager is most compared with Tufin Orchestration Suite, AlgoSec, Skybox Security Suite, ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer and RedSeal, whereas Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud, Tufin Orchestration Suite and Skybox Security Suite. See our FireMon Security Manager 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.