No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Opinnate vs Palo Alto Networks Panorama comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Opinnate
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
14th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Palo Alto Networks Panorama
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
93
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Opinnate is 3.2%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 8.5%, up from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewall Security Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Palo Alto Networks Panorama8.5%
Opinnate3.2%
Other88.3%
Firewall Security Management
 

Featured Reviews

Fulya ALGÜL - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Network Security Specialist at Doğuş Teknoloji A.Ş
Good support, nice interface, and simple to upgrade
PDF format is not available for Alert Composer. There are file attachment or body content output options. The other issue is that the range object can be displayed in the rule viewer section. If we know the range object, we provide imaging, but if we do not know the range object, there is no imaging. It also allows adding range object rules when performing server cloning. In general, however, we have made successful progress since the POC process.
Richard Dombo - PeerSpot reviewer
Application Support Administrator at Meridian Port Services
Monitoring and managing multiple firewalls has become more efficient through centralized oversight and reliable logging
I would say that while Palo Alto Networks Panorama reporting capability is functional, it is not really intuitive. The presentation is not really as advanced as what an advanced solution would have provided. I would like to improve the dashboards on Palo Alto Networks Panorama, especially because I work in an environment where my managers are not really that technical. They do a great job leading us, but they do not have a technical background. If the dashboard could be improved to suit more executive use cases when it comes to reporting, that would be excellent. It is basic as far as I am concerned, and from an executive standpoint, it is not really that good. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama as a product nine or 9.5 out of ten because there is always room for improvement, especially on the dashboard. I think if they could improve the dashboard, I would give them ten out of ten because from a technical standpoint, the dashboard is good, but at an executive level, it is not really that good. I usually struggle when doing presentations to my bosses because the dashboard and reporting from Palo Alto Networks Panorama are not as polished as they could be.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Version upgrades can be done quickly."
"The platform is easy to deploy and maintain."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama has good stability. I didn't see any instability from it, and its initial setup was straightforward."
"The product features allow the capacity to take effective, advanced security measures."
"This solution is user-friendly. It is centrally managed and provides role optimization, without the need for additional tools."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama is stable."
"It's easy to deploy any software or policies."
"One of the most valuable aspects for us is the fact that all of the policy management and configuration management is able to happen right from the centralized management."
"Suppose you have four or five firewalls for different environments related to the same customer; you can buy one license for Panorama and handle the management of all these firewalls simultaneously from one console."
"The main value of Palo Alto Networks Panorama lies in its ability to centralize management, similar to FortiManager."
 

Cons

"The product's web page view is very basic. They could add new features to it."
"PDF format is not available for Alert Composer."
"Customer support can improve."
"As the cybersecurity threats have become more aggressive these days, Palo Alto Networks Panorama can still be improved, particularly on the security side, for example, more network management, and penetration test. Improving the security feature for internal endpoints is needed in the solution."
"I am observing that whenever pushing our configurations sometimes the configuration will not push properly and then we have to go to the individual firewall and save it again."
"The product could offer more integration with other solutions."
"The solution could improve by having a true single pane of glass environment for unified management. At the present time, you still have to use three or four different solutions to bring everything together."
"The presentation is not really as advanced as what an advanced solution would have provided."
"The logs from our virtual appliances show potential for improvement, particularly regarding their deployment in hypervisors like VMware, Proxmox, or Azure Stack."
"I'd like to see improvement in the speed and reliability of the solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Opinnate is inexpensive than other products."
"Pricing for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is always high. If you're going to sell the product, you always have to talk about the technology because it should be about the solution rather than the price."
"Although I don't have direct knowledge of the setup cost I believe it is mid-range."
"Licensing fees are paid yearly."
"It has freed up staff time, which is where we are seeing ROI."
"The pricing is pretty average. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it a five."
"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be lower."
"With the URL filtering, we probably went down from around four hours in response time to about five minutes."
"Palo Alto is expensive and there are many cheaper firewalls, but they do not work as well."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Retailer
11%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business34
Midsize Enterprise14
Large Enterprise46
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
We did not purchase Palo Alto Networks Panorama through the Azure Marketplace. We purchased it directly through Palo Alto.
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
From a monitoring perspective, if we could improve on data retention and keep it for quite a long time, such as 90 days of data retention, that would be good for us to manage our CPU usage, as we c...
What is your primary use case for Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
My main use case for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is to manage our firewalls. We have around 450 firewalls, and we manage them through Panorama. Configuration entry is the primary focus of our use.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Doguş Teknoloji Bileşim A.S Tubitak Kamu SM Sompo Sigorta İsnet Yıldız Holding Arap Türk Bank ...
University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
Find out what your peers are saying about Opinnate vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,495 professionals have used our research since 2012.