Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

Our primary use case is to provide our clients with an internet gateway. 

The best feature is the packet inspection; compared to solutions like Cisco and FortiGate, Palo Alto's packet inspection is much less CPU intensive, allowing it to detect threats embedded within packages more quickly and efficiently. 

Palo Alto Networks NGFW provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities; it's easy to integrate with other platforms, and we never faced any issues doing so.  

Using Palo Alto Networks NGFW's unified platform, our clients have eliminated multiple network security tools and the effort needed to get them to work together.

The solution doesn't support routing in virtual firewall creation, and we want that to be enabled. 

We've been involved with Palo Alto Networks since 2008 and are a reseller, so we implement the solutions for our clients.

The solution is very stable; we don't have any problems with the stability. 

The product is very scalable. Most of our customers are enterprise-sized financial institutions with over 3,000 branches. 

Palo Alto Networks doesn't directly support Pakistan but rather through distributors. Out tickets go to the distributors, which are then forwarded to Palo Alto.

Neutral

The initial setup is very straightforward; we can complete it three to four hours after activating the licenses.

The product is expensive. With one being the cheapest and ten being the most expensive, I give it an eight.

I rate the solution nine out of ten. 

Palo Alto Networks NGFW is an excellent solution; 90% of the financial institutions in Pakistan use it as their ultimate gateway. 

People are just starting to get into machine learning in Pakistan, so we're not 100% sure of its capabilities and potential. I believe machine learning becomes more efficient in a cloud environment than a hybrid one, though I have yet to research this thoroughly.

To a colleague at another company who says they want the cheapest and fastest firewall, Palo Alto Networks provides an expensive solution, but you can't compromise on security. You can buy the most inexpensive firewall, but you'll have to purchase add-ons and subscriptions to enable a complete security infrastructure in your organization. One solution for every situation that doesn't require any additional services is a better choice. 

I advise those considering the solution to understand where they want to deploy it in the organization, as a broad installation is best for internet gateways. Next, the sensitivity of the data is important; for a financial institution like a bank, I recommend Palo Alto NGFWs because of the quality of the security and machine learning.

We use it for our edge firewalls and our east-west and north-south traffic for our firewalls. We have also deployed each firewall to every site for our Layer 3 connections back to our data center.

Since we've integrated it into our east-west traffic and north-south traffic, I feel that it has reduced the number of viruses or other things in our endpoints. I wish to expand it more all the way to our endpoint computers so that we have end-to-end firewall security through Palo Alto.

It provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. This is very important to me because I'm in IT infrastructure. I take care of the entire operations network and everything that flows north and south, east and west, and inside and out of our data center. It's very important that we have Palo Alto to protect us.

It embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. When any packet comes through the network, everything is like a first pass. It goes through every single part of our network, and we don't have a delay in alerts or network security. It stops any attack on the line.

I like all the threat alerts and WildFire. I also like scanning because everything that comes into our network via customers is scanned. We're an electric company, so every one of the bills is scanned and emailed in and out of our network. 

I like the reports, but I wish the reporting was a little better. When I set up the automatic reports to come in, they're pretty basic. I would like them to be a little more advanced at the ACC monitoring and things like that. I still enjoy all the daily alerts that I get and all the daily PDFs and reports, but I just feel that it could expand upon the visualization of the reports.

I've been using this solution for seven years.

The stability is great. They're not going anywhere. They're the industry leader.

It doesn't matter whether you are small or large, Palo Alto will fit your needs.

I'm in Pacific Standard Time. During the day, I have great support, and after 5:30, I don't have great support. During my business hours, I would rate their support as a ten out of ten. I love Palo Alto's support. However, at night, when the sun changes and I go to a different area, it's not always the best at level 1. If the incident was like having a system down, the support would be better, but after hours or 5:30, I have a harder time.

We were using Cisco ASA. We switched because of its ease to use and the GUI. There is also Single Pass Architecture, which is related to the way a packet flows through our network. It doesn't have to go through one area into another area. It's all at one, and it just separates. It gives me the best visibility of our network and firewalls.

It has decreased the time of technicians in researching the vulnerabilities. We also do web filtering, so that helps. Web filtering has changed things because we used to use Websense, and it's night and day.

It's very expensive. However, we usually use all of the subscriptions and threat alerts on any firewall that uses the internet. For each edge security endpoint, we use all subscriptions. Otherwise, we just utilize the threat alert, the antivirus, WildFire, etc.

Palo Alto is the best firewall company. Whether you're a small company or a large company, it will fit your needs.

By attending this RSA Conference, I was hoping to find new security solutions. However, I seem to like my existing Palo Alto security solutions. In terms of the impact of the RSA Conference on our organization’s cybersecurity purchases, it depends on what we're looking for at the time of attending an RSA Conference. Right now, we're looking for something that I didn't really see here. We're looking for security, but this means we need a security operations center (SOC), whereas we're small. We just don't have that type of network. This is almost too much. However, that's why we have Palo Alto Networks.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. Palo Alto is the best firewall security network that I could possibly purchase.

We have clients in the government and supermarkets, for example, who use this firewall for integration with EDR, NDR, CN, and IPS.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' IPS is more complete and is very good. This is a user-friendly solution that is easy to install, and it provides the best protection.

It's very important that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embed machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention because all components are moving laterally these days. We need tools that follow the zero-trust model.

These firewalls have helped reduce downtime in our organization as well.

Palo Alto needs to improve their training. They do not invest in their partners. I have been a partner for seven years, and it is very expensive for me to certify my engineers.

I've been working with these firewalls for almost seven years.

The firewalls are very stable.

Palo Alto's scalability is not as good as that of Check Point. With Check Point, I can integrate the firewall with other products.

We do not have technical support in Brazil, so I would rate it a two out of ten. However, Palo Alto's technical support in the US is good, and I would give them a rating of eight out of ten. 

Neutral

I have worked with Check Point, but it's very difficult to configure. Palo Alto is much easier to configure, and the dashboard is very user-friendly as well.

Because I have worked with Palo Alto for seven years, the initial setup is very easy for me. However, new engineers may find the configuration difficult.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are very expensive compared to other firewalls such as Fortinet. As a result, Palo Alto is losing some of its market share. 

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight out of ten because it's a good product.

I like attending RSA conferences because it gives me the opportunity to see what competitors are doing and what is new on the market.

Attending RSAC does have an impact on our cyber security purchases, but I would like to see manufacturers offer more training, certifications, labs, and demos at RSAC. 

Our use cases include combining multiple next-gen firewalls and bringing them into the Panorama centralized platform.

In general, it's one of the better firewall brands out there. It definitely has the investment and the dedication of the Palo Alto team to constantly improve their product and move forward. They're not a static company, like some of the other companies out there, and that's why I like them.

From a firewall perspective, there is a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities, which is good because there is a single pane of glass. I don't have to go to every single firewall to look at certain things. I don't have to go to every single firewall to deploy rules. I can use Panorama to deploy the rules, so it's a one-stop job type of thing.

For securing data centers consistently across all workplaces, all next-gen firewalls pipe into the same Panorama centralized management solution. We can manage everything from a single pane of glass, deploy all that out, and make sure it goes through each firewall and updates correctly. That's huge. If you had to do it manually and you had thirty locations, that'd be like a day's job versus thirty minutes.

Having a centralized platform where they all feed into the Panorama solution significantly drops firewall-by-firewall management. We can use the Panorama solution to communicate with all of them.

I like the navigation of the general Panorama solution. I can easily navigate around and get to the thing I need. I'm not wasting time trying to find something.

Personally, I feel that their dashboards for reporting and things like that need some improvement.

We've been using Palo Alto for one to two years.

It has been very stable so far.

So far, it has been scalable enough to hit multiple divisions.

I have not personally contacted their support. That just dictates that they have a good product.

Positive

We also use Cisco firewalls.

I am not directly involved in its deployment, but I do help manage it. To my knowledge, the deployment was straightforward. It was easy to connect them into the Panorama platform.

There was a consultant. They knew their stuff.

There is typically no return on investment for firewalls because it's an IT cost, and we don't make money because we don't resell them.

It's pretty good.

We evaluated Fortinet and Check Point.

The value I receive from attending an RSA Conference is huge because I visit all my vendor partners to understand their roadmaps for the future. Attending an RSA Conference has had an impact on our organization’s cybersecurity purchases made throughout the year afterward because it brings out new features and subsets of the vendor partners. Also, if there is a deficiency in any of the current ones we currently use, we'll go engage other providers in order to find out if they can reach that gap or not, and then it'll dictate future proof of concepts and decisions.

Palo Alto embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention, but I personally haven't experienced that. It's a good thing that there hasn't been an attack where that became useful, but that's great to know.

As a result of our experience with Palo Alto NGFW, to a colleague at another company who says, “We are just looking for the cheapest and fastest Firewall,” I would say, "Go with Palo Alto."

Overall, I would rate Palo Alto NGFW an eight out of ten.

We chose Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to replace our outdated firewalls.

The overall security of the organization has been improved.

The most valuable aspect of this solution is pre-sales and post-sales because of the support and relationship building.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. 

The integration of all security capabilities in Palo Alto NG Firewalls provides a unified platform, which is crucial as it reduces complexity.

Having machine learning embedded in the core of the solution for in-line, real-time attack prevention is of great importance to us, it is a top priority. 

This is significant because it enables automation, reducing the number of man-hours needed.

When evaluating the ability of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to secure data centers consistently across all workplaces, I would give it a rating of eight out of ten.

By using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, we have been able to decrease our downtime by several hours per month.

The solution could be more cost-effective.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for two years.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a very stable solution.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are easily scalable.

We previously used Barracuda Networks.

We switched to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls after having a bad experience with our previous vendor for firewall solutions.

Palo Alto is more forward-thinking when compared to Barracuda.

I was involved in the initial setup. It was complex in multiple ways.

The solution itself is not a simple solution.

An integrator assisted us with the deployment.

They were helpful and knowledgeable.

I have experienced a return on investment with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. One benefit is that there are fewer man-hours required for deployment and maintenance.

That solution's pricing and/or licensing are very convoluted.

Based on my experience with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, if a colleague at another company said they were only looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would not recommend Palo Alto.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine out of ten.

Attending an RSA conference provides high value and helps us to see the impact of our organization's cybersecurity purchases annually.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are being used for cloud security in our organization. Along with that, we have implemented SD-WAN, secure access, and XDR. These are the primary firewalls that we have in place.

Essentially, we have almost all of their products across their three suites.

The previous brand we used had a steeper learning curve for our engineers and analysts compared to Palo Alto, which is easier to use. 

We also have an excellent partner in Costa Rica who works with Palo Alto's team there, providing valuable support. Overall, our experience with Palo Alto has been very positive.

Some of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' valuable features are their powerful capabilities and user-friendliness. 

Our security team has found it easy to learn and obtain the necessary certifications and training from Palo Alto.

Overall, we have had a very positive experience with this suite of solutions, including the training they have provided us.

We like the Palo Alto ecosystem and how its different suites of products integrate seamlessly. 

The sharing of information has enhanced our security posture as a company. Overall, our experience with Palo Alto has been very positive.

I believe that It is important that the firewall integrates machine learning to take advantage of all the information that is available, all the data that is available.

You have to integrate machine learning AI and things like that to be able to be a step ahead of the hackers.

Using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, we have experienced zero downtime.

The solution is user-friendly, which is important as it allows us to concentrate on other essential aspects of the company rather than spending time and effort maintaining the solution.

The level of control and granularity in terms of rule customization could be enhanced. However, compared to our previous solution, Palo Alto provides much better drill-down capabilities.

It is a solid solution.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for six years.

It is a very solid, stable solution. We haven't had any issues with it, you know when we have to do updates there are no problems whatsoever. it's a very good solution.

Scalability is an important issue. It is very scalable.

We are currently protecting around 11,000 endpoints.

In my experience, I would rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

They are excellent.

Positive

Initially, I was involved in the setup, but then other team members took over and completed the work. In the end, we reviewed and went over the setup together.

We had a lot of support from their local partner So it was very straightforward at the time.

I didn't come across any significant issues, but as engineers, we are always prepared to face challenges. 

Nowadays, nothing works as simple as plug-and-play like it used to be. However, we try to reduce the likelihood of issues as much as possible by working closely with project managers and performing thorough preparations beforehand.

Before doing the implementation. It was okay.

I believe we have seen a return on investment.

The time we used to spend on various tasks previously has significantly reduced with the implementation of Palo Alto Networks. 

The system is very reliable with no downtime, providing us with a sense of security that is important in cybersecurity.

The price of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is high, but it is worth it if you have the budget for it. 

Budget is always an important factor in decision-making, but it was within our budget, and we were impressed by what we heard, tested, and experienced with Palo Alto.

It is difficult to know and assume the thought process of others. If they have budget constraints, there may be other manufacturers with a lower price point that would be a good fit. We try to evaluate from different angles, not just the budget, but also the technology and how it will fit with our needs. We look for strong capabilities where necessary, such as with Sophos and WatchGuard for smaller companies.

It can be difficult to know the thought process behind a company's decision when it comes to choosing a firewall solution. Budget constraints may play a role, and there are other manufacturers that offer lower price points, which can be a good option. However, it's important to consider technology and how it fits with the company's needs, as well as the strength of the solution. 

Smaller companies like Sophos and WatchGuard also offer solid platforms, and they may be a good fit for those looking for a lower price point. Ultimately, it's important to assess what's important for the company and find a solution that fits those needs, both in terms of functionality and price.

Our process for evaluating firewall solutions usually involves consulting Gartner for their feedback, having sessions with our analysts, and focusing on the leading firewall manufacturers.

We evaluated several firewall manufacturers, including Check Point and Fortinet, but ultimately, we as a group decided that Palo Alto was the best fit for us. 

The decision was not solely mine but rather made by our managers based on the evaluations and presentations given by each vendor. 

We were particularly impressed with Palo Alto's presentation and even visited their headquarters located south of San Francisco. And we just felt comfortable, and it was a good decision.

The RSA sessions have been very informative and enjoyable. Today is actually my last day at the expo, and I've been visiting some of the manufacturers that we already work with as well as some that I want to learn more about. Overall, I think it's been a great experience.

From an engineering standpoint, the expo is a great opportunity to connect with knowledgeable people beyond the marketing façade. It's worth investing time to engage with them, learn about their products and solutions, and find out what they're working on and what's upcoming.

Attending RSA has had a significant impact on our company's cybersecurity purchases for the next year. In fact, I am here with two other colleagues who are actively researching and taking notes on various companies and their offerings. They are gathering valuable information to inform our future purchasing decisions.

We've been coming here for many years now, and we'll not come back. It's a good place to get up to date on what's happening.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a ten out of ten.

I use NG Firewalls for perimeter defense. 

We've seen better throughput compared to our previous firewall. End-users are happier with their connections through Palo Alto. 

Palo Alto offers better Layer 7 protection than competing solutions by Cisco and Fortinet. I also like the VPN client more. The interface is simple, so administrators can deploy and configure it much faster than other firewalls. The interoperability with other vendors is excellent. We can connect Palo Alto firewalls to all our other solutions. 

I would like to see more artificial intelligence. However, that is going beyond firewalls to products like Prisma. Palo Alto has those features in an entirely different ecosystem. It isn't a problem. Machine learning is valuable, but I rely more on threat intel. 

I have been using Palo Alto's solutions since 2014.

I rate Palo Alto NG Firewalls a nine out of ten for stability. We have had zero downtime except for scheduled maintenance. The firewalls are in a cluster that never goes down.

The scalability is excellent because you can always purchase a bigger firewall as you grow. 

I rate Palo Alto's support a seven out of ten. It is good overall but worse in some regions. The first level of support will usually do nothing for you. If you're an IT company, you're not looking for level-one support. You need to escalate. Other vendors have a direct support line for enterprise clients, but not Palo Alto.

Neutral

Palo Alto has a better interface and integration with other solutions than competing vendors. The only drawback is the price. Go with FortiGate if you're looking for a firewall that is cheap and decent. If you can't afford Palo Alto, FortiGate is the next cheapest. 

We can deploy Palo Alto firewalls faster and easier than most other solutions. We assess the traffic, buy the appropriate size, and implement it. 

Palo Alto firewalls are expensive, but they're worth what we pay. 

I rate Palo Alto NG Firewalls a nine out of ten. Technical support has some room for improvement, and there are several minor issues that aren't worth mentioning. 

We are using it for network layer protection. And we have added all the Layer 7 protection there is, such as sinkhole protection and spyware and adware detection.

When you have the advanced URL protection enabled on a Palo Alto NG Firewall, the load on the application layer is reduced. The web application firewall features are already enabled in Palo Alto and those features give you an extra layer of protection, even if you have another technology above the Palo Alto firewall. That extra layer of protection is an opportunity that we have with Palo Alto.

The most important thing is that it's really user-friendly. I have almost stopped using the CLI because I like the graphical interface. You can do whatever you want on a single screen, including all the configuration and implementation, using Panorama. You don't have to switch from one place to another. And the best part is that you can manage multiple Palo Alto devices. We do have other companies' devices and for them we need to go to the CLI. But with Panorama, you almost get everything you need. It is very important for managing all the technology and features on the device, and for adding multiple devices, on one page.

Palo Alto also gives you a lot more options to troubleshoot and fix problems. That really helps our operations team.

Another valuable feature is the sinkhole option. If a malicious packet travels across the firewall, the firewall detects it as malicious traffic but it doesn't stop the traffic then and there. That way the attacker assumes that they have been successful but they have not. It's a type of honeytrap. It allows us to keep on responding to those packets.

Also, when the firewall does network discovery it can detect a malfunction or bugs or a configuration issue. That is very important. If your endpoint system is not functioning properly, it gives you an extra layer of protection in the network discovery field. It shows you all the options and all the data if your system is not compliant.

The Single Pass architecture is a nine out 10. A single pass is always good.

Palo Alto keeps coming out with antivirus and malware updates. When we have to integrate those updates we face some problems with the cloud platform, not the on-prem setup. The device works fine, but sometimes the sync doesn't happen on time.

It's not an issue that happens all the time, just sometimes. It's not a major issue. The device doesn't go down. It is not a priority-ticket situation.

Also, while Palo Alto is doing really well, they should bring out some small devices. As of now, we have the PA-800 Series firewall and the 440 Series firewall. A small Palo Alto firewall would be helpful for low-budget companies.

For the last six to seven months I've been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for architectural purposes. My job is to build infrastructure for our clients to support their functions. I also used Palo Alto for other clients in my previous organization for almost two years.

Scalability is something that I assume is feasible when you have Palo Alto in the cloud. In that case it's feasible to scale it very well, and you don't have to manage it. You just need to order it and it can be scaled per your request.

But with an on-prem setup it can be difficult if you want to scale anything. Then you need to order the physical device and do all kinds of configuration. I haven't really worked on scaling physical devices.

Support is really nice, but they keep on adding features, so regular training is really required for Palo Alto technical support. Every other day, every week, every month, they come up with something new. Sometimes, even technical support doesn't know about an update when it is still in the transition phase. They should have short-term training to be aware of when they are launching a particular new feature.

With more and better training, they will end up saving a lot of time, because they won't have to search for information or ask their colleagues or their engineering team about new features that have been added. That way, customers will be happy.

Positive

The initial deployment is absolutely straightforward. It's a very easy configuration. You just need to follow the instructions.

And the best part is that you get a lot of training material over the internet. I used to think that Cisco gave the best training materials over the internet but I was wrong. If you have any problem, you can Google it. There will be a lot of answers for Palo Alto NG Firewalls on the internet itself.

If everything goes well and if you don't have a major configuration to implement, you just want to set it up, the maximum it would take is one to two hours, because the image deployment is very easy. Once the device is racked up properly and all the cables are connected, you just need to boot up with the latest image and start the to-the-box and through-the-box configurations. Both configurations can be done within two to three hours.

The pricing is fair enough. 

This year, the pricing has increased. They played it really smart by increasing the support license costs and decreasing the platform costs. If you don't want to go for that particular license, you can opt out. The pricing model is very helpful, especially for small companies. If they don't want URL Filtering because they don't have any URL options, they can opt out of the URL Filtering.

I haven't seen Panorama go down in my entire tenure. I've worked with different companies. For example, I worked in Cisco TAC. Cisco users used to say that Firepower, the unified platform, was down and that they could not manage anything. Even though all the other components were running, they could not do any configuration because the unified configuration page itself was down. And, unfortunately, you don't have the ability to configure anything using the Cisco CLI anymore.

But I would give a slight edge to Cicso's technical support over Palo Alto's. I would rate Cisco's support at nine out of 10, and Palo Alto's at eight. Cisco gives priority to its customers.

Before you go ahead and invest in Palo Alto, look at as many reviews as you can. Do proper research before you deploy any firewall.

If someone says they are just looking for the cheapest and the fastest firewall, I would tell them to go for the PA-800 Series and their problem will be solved. Also, for small office requirements, you could go with the PA-440. The PA-450 and 460 will be a little expensive. If your requirements are to set something up for less than 100 users, the 440 will do it.

Our company, in particular, always wants an extra layer of protection. They don't remove any extra layers of security. But an advantage of Palo Alto NG Firewalls is they are sufficient to tackle complications

Palo Alto's firewall is stable, helpful, and user-friendly.