"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."
"The interface with Panorama makes it very easy to use."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The most valuable features are web control and IPS/IDS."
"Using Palo Alto Networks Panorama, we were able to deploy a single point of management and visualization of the firewall infrastructure in cloud, on-premise and integrated with Azure to automate scale up. Its security features, i.e. anti-malware, threat prevention, URL Filtering, VPN, and antivirus are the most valuable. The ID-User integrated with AD and 2FA features are also very useful to provide secure access to servers and some users in the company. "
"The most valuable features are the User ID, URL filtering, and application filtering."
"Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is very easy to use."
"What I like about the VM-Series is that you can launch them in a very short time."
"The solution is really scalable for the high-end power, enterprise customer."
"What we are mainly using are the RSA concentrator, RSA Decoder, Archiver, Broker, and Log Decoder."
"The most valuable features are the integration and ease of use."
"Performance and reporting are very good."
"The packet capture aspect of it is a valuable feature because it is quite different from a traditional SIEM solution that only carries out investigations based on captured logs."
"The most valuable features are the threat prediction and network forensics."
"The most valuable features are the packet inspection and the automated incident response."
"Offers a good wireless feature."
"The product needs improvement in their Secure Access Service Edge."
"In the next release, I would like to see better integration between the endpoints and the firewalls."
"At the beginning of the implementation, we had some difficulties with the scripts, but Palo Alto Networks support together with a local partner finally fixed it."
"It'll help if Palo Alto Networks provided better documentation."
"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."
"Palo Alto is that it is really bad when it comes to technical support."
"They made only a halfhearted attempt to put in DLP (Data Loss Prevention)."
"I would like to have automatic daily reporting, such as how many users have connected via SSL VPN."
"The multi-tenant capabilities are lagging compared to IBM QRadar."
"It is not so easy to customize this product."
"Technical support could be improved."
"More customizability is required, which is something that they need to improve on."
"The solution should have more integration capabilities with different platforms."
"Security needs improvement."
"The documentation is not as structured as I would like, personally, and I think that it can be improved and made much more user-friendly."
"The initial setup is complex. There are other solutions that are easier to implement."
More RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets (RSA SIEM) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 2nd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 16 reviews while RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets (RSA SIEM) is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 11 reviews. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6, while RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets (RSA SIEM) is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "An excellent solution for the right situations and businesses". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets (RSA SIEM) writes "Economical with good technical support and is easily scalable". Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco ASA Firewall, Juniper SRX and Fortinet FortiGate-VM, whereas RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets (RSA SIEM) is most compared with IBM QRadar, Splunk, RSA enVision, ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager (ESM) and LogRhythm NextGen SIEM. See our Palo Alto Networks VM-Series vs. RSA NetWitness Logs and Packets (RSA SIEM) report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.
