We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and Palo Alto Networks WildFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Palo Alto Networks VM-Series has everything centralized. You have the VPN solution, firewall, routing, UDR, flexibility, updates, and full visibility of your traffic."
"It scales linearly with load and no issues."
"They now know the details about their network traffic that they did not know before: Applications that they are using and some application they did not know they were using."
"We can monitor the traffic manually and detect threats. Additionally, we can block different IP addresses and URLs."
"The VM series has an advantage over the physical version because we are able to change the sources that the machine has, such as the amount of available RAM."
"In the newer version, there are 3850s, all of them are scalable. They fit better into the medium or small businesses."
"The product provides more visibility into our traffic."
"The tool's cloud version makes application migration easy."
"The solution is scalable."
"The cloud-based services are a nice feature."
"WildFire has been instrumental in blocking a number of new threats, before common desktop anti-virus tools were able to detect them."
"The most valuable feature is the improved security that it offers."
"The scalability is acceptable."
"The analysis is very fast."
"Their technical support is outstanding and top-notch."
"Remote access is excellent."
"Palo Alto should update their documentation to make it more readable and provide easier-to-follow instructions through videos."
"With Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, it is hard for me to manage its network configuration part."
"We don't know how it will scale once we start putting more load on it."
"It would be good if the common features work consistently in physical and virtual environments. There was an integration issue in the virtual deployment where it didn't report the interface counters, and we had to upgrade to the latest version, whereas the same thing has been working in the physical deployment for ages now. It seems that it was because of Azure. We were using VMware before, and we didn't have any such issues. We do see such small issues where we expect things to work, but they don't because of some incompatibilities. There also seems to be a limitation on how to do high availability in a virtualized environment. All features should be consistently available in physical and virtual environments. It is not always easy to integrate Palo Alto in the network management system. We would like to be able to compare two network management systems. They can maybe allow monitoring an interface through the GUI to create a reference or do a baseline check about whether your network monitoring system is actually giving you the correct traffic figures. You need traffic figures to be able to recognize the trends and plan the capacity."
"The solution needs to have more easily searchable details or documentation about it online, so it's easier to Google if you have queries."
"We have ran into issues with Palo Alto’s limitations for resolving large IP lists from DNS lookups, as well as the antivirus interfering with App-ID."
"The product could be better in terms of performance than one of its competitors."
"The web interface is very slow, and it needs to be faster."
"The product's false positive logs could be more user-friendly to understand. They could provide examples of precious cases to learn."
"The solution can improve its traffic management."
"The global product feature needs improvement, the VPN, and we need some enhanced features."
"The cyber security visibility and forensics features to receive more information about incidents could improve in Palo Alto Networks WildFire."
"The initial setup was complex."
"The product fails to offer protection when dealing with high-severity vulnerabilities, making it an area of concern where improvements are required."
"There are more specialized solutions that compete with Wildfire. Therefore, they need to work on their machine learning and AI to be more competitive."
"The only problem with this solution is the cost. It's expensive."
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) with 50 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) with 58 reviews. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Proofpoint Email Protection, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Fortinet FortiSandbox. See our Palo Alto Networks VM-Series vs. Palo Alto Networks WildFire report.
See our list of best ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) vendors.
We monitor all ATP (Advanced Threat Protection) 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.