Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Palo Alto Networks Panorama vs Tufin Orchestration Suite 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

Palo Alto Networks Panorama
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
90
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tufin Orchestration Suite
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
184
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 7.4%, down from 10.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tufin Orchestration Suite is 22.1%, up from 20.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewall Security Management
 

Featured Reviews

Waleed Aboda - PeerSpot reviewer
Centralized monitoring enhances control while seeking greater flexibility and rapid response
I am still working for Lotus. We work with Palo Alto three series, Panorama, and Firewall Banu, specifically Firewall three series and five series I find this solution valuable for full monitoring, centralized control for reporting, and centralized management. These features are instrumental in…
MithatBulut - PeerSpot reviewer
New employees can quickly grasp the various IPs, devices, and the network's logical and physical
Tufin is primarily used to orchestrate and manage network traffic and firewall devices. It is specifically useful for implementing firewall policies and handling requests from clients that require policy updates or changes Tufin simplifies understanding network topology. New employees can quickly…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"From a configuration point of view, when we are implementing it for large organizations where the customer owns a hundred firewalls, it's just easy to manage them all at one central location."
"Centralized management is a valuable feature."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama has a lot of features."
"The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Panorama are centralized management. We can manage all our firewalls."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama is stable."
"Technical support is quite helpful."
"I like the quality of this product, and it performs. It's the best solution in the IT business."
"I really like the product."
"Policy management and the cartography of the network have been the most valuable features."
"One of the main things is to look at what policies haven't been hit, so we can remove those remnant policies when people come in, use it, and it's still left on the Check Point. So when a couple of users say, "This is not needed anymore." We'll remove it."
"In our current environment, the most valuable feature from Tufin is their Network Map."
"The technical support is pretty good."
"This solution helps us ensure that security policy is followed across our entire hybrid network. You can have a Unified Security Policy which reaches across all networks, so if you are having a change submitted, it doesn't matter if you're enforcing it or not. You can get an alert saying, "This is a violation." That's a value-add."
"The best feature for me is being able to look up objects within all of our policies, because we have a little over 12,000 rules and over 30,000 objects. When one person says, 'Hey, where's my server?' I can just go to Tufin and say, 'Hey, where is that server?' and very quickly it tells you where it is, what policy it's on. That is a life saver."
"The change workflow process is flexible and customizable. I was really impressed with it. It's pretty easy. You can add automatic validation steps. Depending on the security matrix, you can pre-allow whatever flow you want."
"We built the policy comparison reporting into our processes that before we push any change to production, an engineer will stage actual date rule changes and policy changes. Another engineer will go in and do a comparison report of the last push policy to the last save, making sure what has been changed is what is expected to. From an operational excellence, it's huge for us. We have huge policies. All it takes is one accidental right click, delete, or backspace button, which could impact our business. So, this is something that we use almost day in and day out."
 

Cons

"Aside from pricing, I don't have any issues with Panorama."
"The general customer feedback is when saving the configuration, it takes a long time. That needs to be fixed. The troubleshooting, the debugging part is also a little bit of a pain. It's not user-friendly on the interface to do our debugging when comparing it with other firewalls, like Forcepoint."
"The solution's utilization of network ports makes things as complex as possible."
"The customer support needs to be better."
"Palo Alto needs to improve deployment by making it easier to deploy an agent to a desktop."
"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 solution should improve the speed at which they make changes on the system. Historically, they've been a bit slow in that respect. They should apply changes to the box quicker and more often."
"We found a vulnerability where when we have a low flow, like 2.7K, it is not getting fired by the threat prevention. That's something important to improve on. They should have a proxy or some solution to solve the issue. We also found some issues around decrypting the flow. When we have more flow than expected to decrypt, the performance goes down."
"The solution does not have automation with other Firewalls."
"Our initial setup was complex from two dimensions, because we were deploying it globally and had to have a centralized view, but a distributed approach. We had it in Asia and North America, causing a slightly complicated approach."
"I would like easier integration with more automation."
"The topology needs improvement. If I click on the network tab, I can go get a cup of coffee, come back, and my topology is still not painted. Maybe, it's just because we have so many devices, but looking at the topology, it is too slow. The problem is that when I click on the network tab, I do not want to see the topology. I want to click on the "Next" button, so I can put in the source and destination, so I can see the path. However, I still have to sit there and wait for the topology to load, and it's frustrating. I'll click on topology and try to click that "Next" button in time to where I can get around it. But, typically, you have to wait for that topology to paint. When it paints it, it's just a bunch of black smudges because there is just so much there. It can't paint it to where you see something. I can always zoom out, or something like that, but it's really worthless."
"I would like a better reporting feature and automatic alerting based upon rule changes."
"We actually had a key issue, which was a bug, that the development team didn't want to fix. We escalated it, then it got fixed. So, the management level seems very responsive at least, but at a support level, they are just regular support people and not outstanding."
"There are pros and cons to the workflow. You cannot customize it fully and there are some limitations. You cannot create a pure object, a firewall, IP, or service (single layer) object. You can only create a firewall object group. That is one of the challenges."
"With scalability, we are going to run into some issues. We have been talking about converting over to actual hardware as opposed to virtual. Therefore, I don't think we are scalable at this time, especially with the updates coming. I'm told that they're going to need a lot more horsepower to push them."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay approximately $3,000 a year in order to use the product."
"My company pays for the licensing cost of Palo Alto Networks Panorama yearly, and it's all-inclusive, so there's no need to pay extra for some features."
"The solution is expensive and could be cheaper."
"There is a license needed to use Palo Alto Networks Panorama. The cost is not that important, what is important is meeting all the requirements and security features."
"Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a more expensive solution than competitors. They should lower the price to stay competitive."
"The price of the licenses could be lower. Still, because we have Panorama with 25 firewalls, Palo Alto gives us a good discount."
"The pricing is pretty average. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it a five."
"You only pay for the license and there are no additional costs."
"It's quite an expensive solution."
"The cost is pretty high. It's close to seven figures."
"For us it's around $40,000 or so."
"We have seen ROI in operational aspects, in terms of how long it takes to resolve incidences which arise."
"Our licensing fees are approximately $100,000 USD yearly."
"Our licensing fees are more than $100,000 USD per year."
"Tufin makes things a little easier. It lessens the amount of manual work which we have to do. It has a lot of benefits in terms of revenues, profits, employee costs, and operational costs. We have already seen return on investment."
"Licensing is available in both perpetual and subscription models, and it appears to be good for our scalable environments."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.
859,438 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
The most valuable aspect of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for me is the centralized management of multiple firewalls.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
Palo Alto Networks Panorama is expensive but provides good value for money. For the higher end, the cost is justified. However, for the lower end, a reduction in cost could improve competitiveness.
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
From the reporting side, naming the reports properly so that they can be easily identified would be an improvement. Other than that, it works well. There was a bug causing us to not get the latest ...
What needs improvement with Tufin SecureCloud?
Tufin Orchestration Suite ( /products/tufin-orchestration-suite-reviews ) is not commonly used in Thailand due to a lack of local support, and many customers are switching to AlgoSec or other vendo...
What is your primary use case for Tufin SecureCloud?
I have primarily used Skybox and AlgoSec ( /products/algosec-reviews ). I have also interacted with FireMon for compiling. However, I am not currently working with ACA, and I don't have any project...
What advice do you have for others considering Tufin SecureCloud?
There is potential for improvement in explaining the analytics in the dashboard for Tufin Orchestration Suite. Tufin Orchestration Suite does provide good monitoring; however, interpreting the grap...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Tufin SecureCloud
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
3M, AT&T, Blue Cross Blue Shield, BNP Parabas, ConocoPhillips, Deutsche Bank, GE, IBM, Pfizer, United States Postal Service 
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks Panorama vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,438 professionals have used our research since 2012.