Palo Alto Networks K2-Series Reviews

I use Palo Alto as an Intrusion Prevention System, and as a normal firewall to block and allow IPs and ports. I use it for file analysis and sandboxing as well.

I find the ease of use and reliability the most valuable features of the solution.

The product should get frequent updates allowing us to add new signatures. This is my only concern.

I have been using the solution for four or five years.

I would rate the stability of the product ten out of ten.

The scalability of the product is quite high. I would like to give it a ten. At the moment, I have around 15-16 colleagues using the solution. They are all working in the technical, presale, and IT departments.

In my current company, we have just invested in Palo Alto. We have used other solutions as well. We decided to switch to Palo Alto based on the reports and the experiences of the people who termed it as a very good product.

The initial setup was very straightforward and required just one person for deployment. It took a week to complete the process. I would rate it nine out of ten.

I would rate the product seven out of ten for pricing.

It's quite a nice product. It's worth the purchase. I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Palo Alto Networks K2-Series in projects as a firewall.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is the configuration, it is very clear.

It is recommended that the Palo Alto Networks K2-Series be implemented step by step for the Panorama. Sometimes we can't overwrite the configurations because it fails.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks K2-Series for approximately two years.

Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is a stable solution.

I have found Palo Alto Networks K2-Series to be scalable.

Our clients have many users using this solution.

The premier support from Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is good. We can open a ticket if we have an issue in our department.

We have previously used Fortinet FortiGate. We switched to Palo Alto Networks K2-Series because we can receive more information.

The installation of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series was simple. There are a lot of technical documents that can be used for assistance.

We used an integrator for the deployment of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series.

We have two engineers that do the maintenance and support of the solution.

One of the benefits is we can use some of the features from Palo Alto Networks K2-Series for free. If we want more features we have to pay. There is a license to use the solution and it is paid annually.

The overall price of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series could be reduced.

I rate Palo Alto Networks K2-Series an eight out of ten.

I have found that Palo Alto Networks K2-Series has the best security. They are more user-friendly, older firewalls used to have to be configured using the command-line interface, but in this solution, it can be done in the GUI.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks K2-Series for a couple of years.

Palo Alto Networks K2-Series are more stable and capable than older firewalls.

The support from Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is very good.

Palo Alto Networks K2-Series are easy to install and are simple to troubleshoot.

Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is an expensive solution, the price could be reduced. They are more expensive than some of their competitors.

I have heard that Juniper firewalls are more complex when it comes to configuration than Palo Alto Networks K2-Series. The flexibility of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is a large advantage and they use the best parts.

I would recommend Palo Alto Networks K2-Series to others.

I rate Palo Alto Networks K2-Series a seven out of ten.

We have eight VFDs. We have the bigger firewalls. I forget the model number but they're the bigger ones. We have smaller ones—the 220s— so we have a pretty good range of Palo Alto firewalls that we use in our company.

One of the most valuable features is Palo Alto's firewall management. We find it easier to manage the firewall centrally.  

In the past, we've had trouble with Palo Alto's application filtering not getting it right. I would not be recommending layer 7 application filtering yet. That's the only hiccup with the product line. In terms of the features, I'd like to see, one of the bigger pieces missing from any firewall system is the ability to monitor and report. I don't think there are any firewalls doing this, but I'd like to see firewalls have the ability to do what Splunk is doing automatically. In other words, the ability to provide log analysis and monitoring from a visualization standpoint would be very beneficial to any firewall. That doesn't really exist today. 

There also needs to be a real methodology to maintain rules. They have rule sets in there and different ways of showing it, but the presentation isn't great. It's not a great presentation of where you have duplicate rules in place that makes it easy to find. Then again, I would say that no firewall company really has good management abilities for that. This isn't to badmouth Palo Alto. It's just that these features don't exist. So as we talk about where threat modeling and cybersecurity need to go, there's no one vendor with the best solution. It'd be nice if it would come in one platform. In other words, you buy their product, and they have a platform that includes that functionality.

We've used Palo Alto for nearly five years now. We formerly used Check Point exclusively, but now we're using Palo for all of our perimeter security and our VPN connection coming in.

Capability-wise, I think Palo Alto firewalls can pretty much handle anything thrown at them. 

I haven't done a lot with tech support. But the guys that are doing it say that outside support from Palo Alto is really good.

Check Point and Palo Alto are very similar as far as the platform's concerned. On the low-end side, maybe for smaller solutions, Check Point firewalls seem to do just fine and are even a little better. Their low-end products are better as far as performance is concerned. At the high-end, they can't touch the Palo Altos. The Palo Altos seem to be significantly better at handling more load and they can service larger throughput in their environment. I would say Palo Alto, overall, has a better, more reliable product line.

I would rate Palo Alto firewalls an eight out of 10.

We use the solution as a firewall product. 

I am impressed with the tool's efficiency and the variety of use cases that includes network attacks. 

I like the tool's WildFire feature. 

The tool needs to improve integration with more products from other vendors. I would like the product to add threat intelligence features as well. 

I have been working with the solution for five years. 

I would rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten. It can integrate with both large and mid-level environments. We have more than 100 users for the product. 

The tech support team is helpful. 

Neutral

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. We use the solution on a daily basis to see the logs regarding attacks and IPs. 

I use this to provide better content to my students as an instructor.

Palo Alto's App-ID is what differentiates it from other competitors. 

Palo Alto has many other products. It would be nice for these products to be centralized under one tool rather than having to jump from tool to tool.

I have been using this product for four years.

This product is designed for large companies. The price would not be suitable for a small or medium-size company.

Your budget should be your main concern when considering K2-Series as a solution to ensure you will be able to take advantage of each feature or if you would be better off choosing a different solution.

Overall, I give this tool an eight out of ten.

I'm a telecom operator, so all of my IT and network management stuff is behind this firewall. 

Palo Alto K2-Series firewalls could use some technical improvements, like main and standby, as well as FTU and STU support. In addition, they should upgrade the CPU, and there are so many other things that I cannot think of off the top of my head. 

I've been using Palo Alto firewalls for two years.

Product-wise, it's stable, but it takes too long to switch between main and standby — maybe 10 to 12 seconds — and sometimes my traffic cuts out, yes. Also, the CPU processing power is not so good.

Palo Alto firewalls are scalable enough. We have about 110 employees in our company, and we are about to expand to 130.

Most firewall companies offer similar products, like Fortinet, etc., but Palo Alto support is not as good as its competitors. Palo Alto is almost zero. If we have issues, they take anywhere from two days to a week to respond. I even wrote to their CEO because there was no response. When it comes to support, this is the worst company.

We have no idea how complicated the setup is. An agent from Palo Alto did all that and then conducted some training. And if we need something, we have to call the agent.

The price is high, but we've already purchased these two boxes, so we have to continue using them for some time. Unfortunately, the salesperson we worked with isn't a Diamond-level agent, so he couldn't give us good discounts. But maybe a lower price is possible.

I rate Palo Alto K2-Series Firewall six out of 10.

Generally, the solution is used as a perimeter-based firewall with a secondary firewall covering the servers.

Benefit wise with the speed of deep packet inspection, we've found it will assist with a quicker resolution to a potential false-positive alert. You're able to drill down. It's a third to probably 75% faster than a lot of the other premier firewalls on inspections. Therefore, your root cause analysis will then come to a resolution quicker. It's all about speed.

The deep inspection functionality is great.

The solution scales well.

As long as the solution is kept updated, it's pretty stable. 

The solution provides a lot of value to the client.

The licensing cost is a typical complaint with many clients. The solution is expensive.

In terms of automation, they could get better with it, especially with third-party integration. There are not too many products that will integrate with ease to the Palo Alto product set. They keep things locked down quite hard, which technically is also a benefit. That said, third-party integration definitely would be a benefit to us, as most of our implementations are two or even three different firewalls. Having third-party tools that integrate with all three or all two other products would be a benefit.

I've used the solution since it came out, about seven years ago.

The stability of the product has to be put into a relative context. If people keep it upgraded and maintained, there are generally no issues. If they let it fall behind and we have to do a catch-up or leapfrog versions then there could be other complexities.

The solution is scalable. If a company puts in at the right requirements and they double it by 50%, which you should always do, then there is lots of headroom until the next refresh cycle.

Any type of company can leverage the solution, from smaller organizations to very large enterprises. The main difference is if there's a higher security environment, the solution requires more attention. However, it has the capability to handle any size of setup.

I've never directly spoken with technical support and therefore cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

The solution is complex due to the fact that the salespeople from Palo Alto, or even from my firm will say, oh, we can just use this import wizard. However, that works to about a 60% level, and it does not do a complete import of Fortinet to Palo Alto or Cisco to a Palo Alto or Check Point to a Palo Alto.

That's where the complexity comes in. The customer thinks it's going to be easy. The salespeople said it's going to be easy. However, it really is not.

The time it takes to implement the solution is a hundred percent dependent upon the requirements of the solution. I've had firewalls taking six months to implement in a large retail environment and I've had also firewalls where you walk in and they give you just outbound requirements, and boom, it's up and out in two hours. That's why it really depends upon the complexity of the requirements.

The cost of the product is quite high.

I deal in list price. I don't get into discounting due to the fact that I do everything on a solution based on the list price. I have seen super heavy discounts from Palo Alto, however.

The licensing for Palo Alto is very straightforward. They include a lot in their base license. However, there may be features in there that are included and are buried in the base licensing cost that the customer will never use.

We're partners with Palo Alto. 

I'm dealing with all different versions of the solution and not necessarily just the most recent version. While most of what we work with is on-prem, many people are now moving to the cloud.

I would advise those considering the solution to ensure that they have a knowledgeable installer. That is critical. Most of ours that we take over are watched installs.

I rate the product at a nine out of ten. From a security/cost-benefit perspective, it's one of the best.