We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Tufin 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."Technical support is quite helpful."
"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 a lot of features."
"I like its flexibility."
"On the one or two occasions that I had to make use of technical support, I felt it to be pretty good."
"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."
"The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Panorama are centralized management. We can manage all our firewalls."
"It has shared profiles for all gateways. If I do not have Panorama, I need to create a separate profile for each and every gateway by logging into that particular gateway, but with Panorama, I can create a shared profile and just push it down to each and every gateway connected to it."
"I like the policy topology map, which allows us to visualize the picture of the security policy of the whole organization."
"It provides very good reports. It can easily integrate with multiple firewalls, such as Cisco, Juniper, Palo Alto, and Checkpoint. We can push a policy from Tufin to a firewall, which is a very good feature. We can monitor all access rules and the operating system of a firewall."
"The most valuable feature of Tufin is rule analysis."
"We can check and analyze the current status of our firewall rules."
"Visibility is its largest and most valuable feature. You can see everything or all the devices on the network for each customer. It provides you a larger view of what might be wrong with the network and how you can improve it with firewall rules, etc. If you are talking about secure change, being able to automate the entire change process is pretty much the winner for us. It is going to really reduce the time that it takes for us to do changes, and we can just go out and get more customers."
"It is very stable."
"The solution is good, and no clients complained about it."
"You can easily scale the solution if you need to."
"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 initial setup requires expertise and can be a bit complex."
"Reporting might be an area to improve. It can provide reporting or some sort of graphical representation of your environment."
"There is always room for improvement in anything."
"The initial setup can be complex."
"Instead of searching their knowledge base in their website, maybe they can interact with us in the user interface to explain things 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."
"We have experienced a few bugs which the team at Palo Alto don't have solutions for."
"The initial setup of Tufin was complex. We had some issues with the architecture."
"They need to offer more support to vendors, such as Cisco, Checkpoint, Fortinet, and Forcepoint."
"The network part of the solution could be improved. It's too hard because of the Tufin licensing model for the routing devices."
"The solution does not have automation with other Firewalls."
"The older version that we have doesn't support some newer firewall vendors."
"Currently, we are able to monitor access rules and the operating system of a firewall. It would be great if we can also monitor the configuration of the firewall through Tufin."
"Integration for Layer 2 devices could be improved because it requires manual scripting."
"Their pricing can be better. It is not very transparent."
Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 4th in Firewall Security Management with 44 reviews while Tufin is ranked 2nd in Firewall Security Management with 20 reviews. Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.4, while Tufin is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Easy to manage with a straightforward initial setup and good stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tufin writes "Suits customer needs in complex environments but licensing model for routing devices could be simplified". Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud, FireMon and Azure Firewall Manager, whereas Tufin is most compared with AlgoSec, FireMon, Skybox Security Suite, ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer and RedSeal. See our Palo Alto Networks Panorama vs. Tufin 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.
