We performed a comparison between Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks and SonicWall SMA based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Enterprise Infrastructure VPN solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's an ideal gateway solution for small and medium businesses, i.e., around 300 devices can be easily handled."
"The solution has good performance."
"The protection for web-based applications was helpful for my colleagues who didn't want a particular application on their devices. And the non-web access protection was more for our developers because they were writing and building code on their computers. Prisma Access was able to protect them."
"Prisma's most valuable feature would be its ability to identify bad or risky configurations."
"Prisma Access protects all app traffic, so that users can gain access to all apps and that's very important because we need to be able to access everything. It also allows us to access non-web apps; anything internal that we need access to, we can access."
"Panorama provides centralized management capabilities for all our firewalls and locations so that we can manage different data centers through a single device, a very valuable feature. We don't have to log into various devices to oversee them individually."
"The product's initial setup phase is simple."
"It protects all app traffic so that users can gain access to all apps. Unlike other solutions that only work from ports 80 and 443, which are predominantly for web traffic, Prisma Access covers all protocols and works on all traffic patterns... The most sophisticated attacks can arise from sources that are not behind 80/443."
"Palo Alto Firewall is one of the best firewalls in the world."
"Its hands-off security and the fact that we don't have to maintain it are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is they have IT consultants that know SonicWall."
"The performance is good."
"I am very satisfied with the technical support."
"Blocklisting and allowlisting are the most beneficial features for network security."
"The solution is reliable and has good overall performance."
"I think they ask for a fair price."
"The management and the dashboard are the solution's most valuable features."
"Secure Mobile Access (SMA) is easy to configure and the deployment is straightforward. However, this is mostly because of the AWS setup."
"There must be a more easy-to-use GUI."
"Their next release should provide solutions for the mobile environment."
"Its integration with non-Palo Alto products can be improved. Currently, it is easy to integrate it with other Palo Alto products such as Cortex XDR. It integrates well with other Palo Alto products. A major part of our network is based on Palo Alto products, but for those companies that use multi-vendor products in their infrastructure, Palo Alto should optimize the integration of Prisma Access with the network devices from other vendors."
"I haven't seen any SD-WAN configuration capability. If Prisma Access would support SD-WAN, that would help... SD-WAN devices should be able to reach Prisma Access, and Palo Alto should support different, vendor-specific devices, not just Palo Alto devices, for SD-WAN configuration."
"We are using the SaaS offering. We use our applications for microservices. We use Twistlock to scan containers, and it displays these results in Prisma, which is a good feature because we can see vulnerabilities with respect to these containers. We can see everything in a very detailed manner. However, when you have different environments for a single application, such as DEV, QA, PROD, and TEST, all these environments run multiple containers, which can lead to a very high number of containers. In such a scenario, it shows you the alerts for all those containers that have vulnerabilities. If you show the results of all the containers that share the same image, it is not going to add any value. Therefore, they should narrow down the alerts based on a container. It should show information for a single container. Otherwise, the person who is looking at the results gets the impression that he has to fix all these issues. This is something that they can improve."
"There can be some latency issues with the solution that should be improved."
"I would like the solution to support a different type of authentication. We can't configure a secondary method for our portal."
"The solution’s stability could be improved."
"We've run into some challenges, having hit a lot of bugs over the past year in the deployment of GlobalProtect. We've had our fair share of issues that I haven't been happy with. We're working with the support organization to remediate them and waiting for updated releases. The response on getting the bugs fixed has not been what I would consider adequate for a product like this."
"SonicWall's reporting isn't good. Reports should be part of a data plan. The login mechanism should be improved. It would be helpful if the client could use an agent to log in. An agent-server model would improve the performance of the RDB, which consumes a lot of bandwidth."
"SonicWall SMA is difficult to use and it does not provide easy access to different parts of the network."
"The overall menu is not very user-friendly and it could be easier."
"User interface could be improved."
"The only thing that they could try to improve is the support for enterprise customers. Normally enterprises and SMBs can create a ticket, but for enterprises, SonicWall SMA needs to provide a global view, and this is what's currently missing. It's not even a question of timing. It's a question of the global vision because currently, it's lacking. They concentrate on the topic, but not on the means and not on the global picture. In most cases, there's something wrong with the integration of SonicWall SMA with other products, so that could also be improved."
"The problem is that when combined with what the client already has, there are two different logins and two different management systems, and these should be consolidated into a single interface."
"Enhancing live tracking capabilities could improve the product, particularly in monitoring user activity and request statuses in real-time on the web interface."
"The product itself is very good, but Dell needs to work on product visibility in their advertising."
More Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks Pricing and Cost Advice →
Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is ranked 5th in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN with 56 reviews while SonicWall SMA is ranked 21st in Enterprise Infrastructure VPN with 14 reviews. Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is rated 8.4, while SonicWall SMA is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks writes "Integration with Palo Alto platforms such as Cortex Data Lake and Autofocus gives us visibility into our attack surface". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonicWall SMA writes "It allows us to provide CML-based access to any user, but the reporting could be better". Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Netskope , Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access and Prisma SD-WAN, whereas SonicWall SMA is most compared with Fortinet FortiClient, Cisco SD-WAN, SonicWall Netextender, Peplink SpeedFusion and Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway. See our Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks vs. SonicWall SMA report.
See our list of best Enterprise Infrastructure VPN vendors.
We monitor all Enterprise Infrastructure VPN 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.
