Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

The solution is typically used for antivirus and antimalware purposes, to help protect an organization against attacks.

The solution offers many different capabilities.

It's one of the best products I've worked with. It's typically a market leader on Gartner. It's a very respected brand.

The solution offers very good security, especially in relation to antivirus activities.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The product is extremely reliable.

The pricing of the solution is quite high. It's one of the most expensive firewall solutions on the market.

Clients are typically looking for a solution that's more aggressive in the market.

For example, with Fortinet, they have an SD-WAN that really has many capabilities. For example, it can inject a GSL SIM card along with the MPLS connection. It connects the system within one product. Palo Alto doesn't offer this. This is one area that will need to improve. In Indonesia, the market is growing strategically. Palo Alto has this one product, however, with the limitation of the GSM sim card they are getting left behind. 

I started using the solution around 2012 or 2013. It may have been eight years or so. Sometimes I am doing a POC or implementing the solution, so it has been on and off.

While the solution itself is okay in terms of stability, there could be issues if the hardware is affected. We have hardware that gets affected by humidity, for example, which can end up affecting a wide range of infrastructure. If the environment is good, the solution will be okay. If we talking about Palo Alto's series starting from the 3,000 to 5,000 or 7,000, Palo Alto has a really stable product.

We set up this solution for companies of all sizes, from small to large enterprises. One of our clients is a telecom, which is quite sizable. They have the most complex configuration. The solution, however, is able to work for any company, no matter what the size. In that sense, it's a scalable option.

That said, the NG firewall is not a typical product that we can scale up on a whim. If we want to scale up in this product, we need to buy a higher series. We have to replace it. If we want to scale out this product, we can do a roll out in another location. Therefore, you can expand it out, however, you do need to change the sizing, which means getting a size or two up.

I haven't contacted technical support recently. The last time I spoke to the tech support team was five years ago or maybe as an Operation Engineer three or five years ago. Generally, I found that they were really good at understanding the product. In my experience, they were really helpful. I'd say I was satisfied with their support.

I've also used Juniper, however, that may have been three or four years ago or so.

In my case, I have a lot of experience with Palo Alto and the implementation process. Therefore, I don't find it too complex. It's rather straightforward for me. However, I have a long history with the solution. I find the hierarchy of the configuration fairly easy to understand, especially if you compare it to a solution such as Juniper. Juniper is a bit more complex to set up. Whereas, Palo Alto is a bit more straightforward.

How long deployment takes can vary. It really depends on the complexity of the configuration and the environment.

If a client only buys the implementation, they will have to handle the maintenance of the product. It's a good idea to have that type of person in-house.

We find the cost of the solution to be very high. It's quite expensive, and one of the most expensive on the market.

The pricing is related to the complexity of the environment. The more complex the company's requirements, the more it will cost.

We have a partnership with Palo Alto.

I am in pre-sales and often do POCs or do some aspect of evaluating the solution for clients to help them understand the usefulness.

Overall, I really do prefer Palo Alto to other options. I'm the most comfortable with it and I understand it the best out of other solutions such as Juniper or Fortinet.

I'd suggest organizations consider the solution. Yes, it is quite expensive. However, it is also very reliable and is always marked highly in Gartner due to its feature set and usability. It's easy to configure and it's very easy to add more features into your roadmap if you need to. It can easily integrate into a larger holistic security system to help keep a company safe.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

The most valuable features of this solution are all of the services it provides. 

The application layer to the hardware Layer is good, as are all layers it offers.

It's a very comprehensive solution.

The features should be built into the system. For example, it generates many logs with a lot of information that can be converted into security and business information and shown to the user. This is a time-consuming job.

I would like to see it provide us with intelligent information from the data that it captures, within the same cost.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It's a very stable product, so far.

It's very scalable. We have 300 users in our company.

Technical support is very good.

We have worked with various firewalls such as Check Point, Sophos, Cisco, and some unknown product names as well.

There are several things to consider before recommending a solution. It depends on the business requirements, the budget, and the complexity of the security needs.

I believe that Palo Alto is the best one, then Check Point and Sophos. Those are my three preferences.

Palo Alto and Check Point would be rated an eight out of ten and the others would be a seven out of ten.

The initial setup is complex, but it can be done.

The rollout takes a couple of weeks but you have to keep improving it every day.

Part of the setup was completed by me, with some help externally.

We have a subcontractor for maintenance.

This is an expensive product, as are the others of this type.

Know your business requirements, the features, the ease of use, and know what type of budget you have. These are the types of requirements to know before you use this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for our internal network.

The active features on the solution are excellent.

The dashboard and management console are both very user-friendly. Everything is easy to navigate.

The interface is very nice. We generally like the UI the product offers.

The ability to check cases could be improved upon. We find that most of the packets we have to directly open with the PA. Until then, it's possible that there cannot be any support.

Take, for example, the XDR. The XDR is the real power to all our solutions from PA, however, when we are using their XDR, we have directly to contact PA. It's like this for the licensing or for any technical issues.

The solution could offer better pricing. We'd like it if it could be a bit more affordable for us.

The solution should offer SD-WAN.

We've been using the solution since 2016. It's been quite a few years now, at this point.

The solution is quite stable. We don't have bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's quite good and we've been happy with it.

We haven't tried to expand the solution or to scale it up. It's not an aspect of the solution our company has explored just yet. Therefore, I can't speak to its capabilities in this aspect. I'm not sure what exactly is possible.

I don't have any experience with technical support. I've never had to contact them. Other colleagues would be the ones that deal with this aspect. I wouldn't be able to comment on their level of knowledge of responsiveness.

We're also using Check Point as a firewall.

The initials setup was pretty straightforward. It was not complex at all for us. We didn't run into any issues during the implementation.

The licensing is paid on a yearly basis. 

The pricing could be better, however, the cost depends on the sizing of the product. The pricing, therefore, varies from company to company for the most part.

We have a partnership with Palo Alto.

We're using the 5000 series of Palo Alto. It's a next-generation firewall. We're currently using the Management Gateway and Virtual Firewall. Also, the Endpoint Solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations. We've been pretty happy with it so far.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We use it to control what users may access internally and externally, which covers everything. We are using its latest version. The model that we are using is 3220.

Its flexibility is the most valuable.

Its price can be better. They should also provide some more examples of configurations online.

I have been using this solution for one and a half years.

It is very stable.

We haven't scaled it because if you want to scale it upwards, you have to change the firewall.

I have sometimes used the local support here in Norway. That has been okay. There are no problems.

I have tried Sophos, Cisco, and FortiGate. This is the best firewall.

The initial setup is easy. There is good documentation for this.

Its price can be better. Licensing is on a yearly basis.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a ten out of ten. It is the best solution I have tried. I am happy with this solution.

The solution can be used in the data center it can be used as perimeter firewalls and gateways as well. It can be used anywhere. From the systems side, the data center side, or I typically recommend that it be deployed in a VM, as it may be able to see the internet traffic and specifically it would basically look into the details of a virtualized environment as well.

It's a next-generation firewall and it's pretty stable. You don't have to worry about if you restart it for some maintenance. It will just come back. Basically, it would come back in a straightforward manner. There are no stability issues.

The one thing that I like about Palo Alto is it's throughput is pretty straightforward. It supports bandwidth and offers throughput for the firewall.  The throughput basically decreases.

Palo Alto actually provides two throughput values. One is for firewall throughput and other is with all features. Whether you use one or all features, its throughput will be the same.

It's performance is better than other firewalls. That is due to the fact that it is based on SPD architecture, not FX. It basically provides you with the SB3 technology, a single path parallel processing. What other brands do is they have multiple engines, like an application engine and IPS engine and other even outside management engines. This isn't like that.

With other solutions, the traffic basically passes from those firewalls one after the other engine. In Palo Alto networks, the traffic basically passes simultaneously on all the engines. It basically improves the throughput and performance of the firewall. There's no reconfiguration required.

Palo Alto has all the features that any firewall should have. Other firewalls should actually copy Palo Alto so that they can provide better stability, performance, and protection - at levels that are at least at Palo-Alto's.

This isn't necessarily an issue with the product per se, however, sometimes basically there are some features, depending on the customer environment, do not work as well. Sometimes some of the applications the customer has do not respond as they normally should. Palo Alto support needs to understand the customer requirements and details so that they can resolve customer queries more effectively.

I've been using the solution for the past six years at this point.

The solution offers very good stability. I don't have issues with bugs or glitches. It's reliable.

We have a variety of customers ad they all have a different amount of users. Some have 50 users. Some have 100 users. Some have 1,000 users as well. It varies quite a bit. In that sense, it scales to meet the customer's needs.

I've dealt with technical support in the past. Sometimes it is good and sometimes it's not as good. It depends on the complexity of the deployment. Overall, however, I would say that I have been satisfied with the level of service provided.

There are multiple products from different vendors, and I basically deploy different firewalls from different vendors for the customers based on their needs. The solutions I work with include Cisco, Fortinet, and WatchGuard. There are a few others as well.

The initial setup isn't too complex. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment time basically depends on the deployment model. If it's a VMware model, it's pretty straightforward and you can basically deploy it in half an hour to one hour.

If it is in another deployment model, for example, if it's in Layer 3, it depends on the subnet environment, how many subnets they have, or how the traffic is routing from one end to the other end, etc. 

I'm involved in system integration, so I basically deploy and manage the solution for the other customers.

I'm an integrator. I work with many clients. My clients use both the cloud and on-premises deployment models.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations.

Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for the perimeter connection of our clients in the network. Our client brings their services to their clients, and they have the option to connect to a webpage. With Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls they can safely provide a username and password to their clients.

It is mainly on-premise, because the majority of the clients at this point want that kind of option. But many of them are already asking for the cloud option, like Prisma, for example.

It has improved our clients' organizations because previously the clients did not have the option to fully connect. In this solution, they have the opportunity to add services to their web page and book clients.

The feature that I have found most valuable is the connection. It's very easy for the clients to connect to their information. They use an SSL connection by BPM.

We work very closely with the vendors here and at this point they use external support.

Maybe they could add some tools and more competing services, like servers, but that would increase the cost of the solution.

My company has been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for almost one year. It is new for us. We have more experience with Cisco and Fortinet.

In my company, I am responsible for the development of the proposal that we give to the client. We develop the spectrum and the pricing. We make presentations to the customer to explain the solution and answer questions about it.

The scalability is very strong. The vendor provides has high availability.

Our clients are medium sized businesses.

Palo Alto is not a cheap solution. It is expensive. But because of its technology it pays itself back. In each case we work with the vendor to obtain a major discount for their business. I give that discount to our customer, who benefit from the services that we can bring them.

This is our first dealing with Palo Alto. With other vendors we have more experience, like with Cisco and Fortinet.

Palo Alto's documentation and manuals are very complete. It's very easy to obtain the information that way.

The client still uses Cisco, Fortinet, and Checkpoint. Palo Alto has very good administration tools which is not the case with the others. You can't compare all vendors. Also, the granularity of the information that they can obtain from the firewalls is better.

The initial setup depends. In the case of one client, for example, they have a very complex connection of networks, which is architectural. It is integrated and we need to pick it out and include all the rules that they have and to put in the firewalls which they want to buy in the next month. That kind of job is not easy for us, not just regarding Palo Alto but for other vendors, too.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine.

I would recommend this product to others.

In terms of what advice I would give to future customers looking into implementing Palo Alto Firewalls, I would tell them that they have a good system operator in the firewalls and that it provides many tools that they can use to protect their networks. You don't find that in the other vendors.

We use this firewall as part of our overall security solution. It is used to protect our perimeter on the internet side. We have the on-premises version installed for our offices and the cloud-based version for our cloud offerings. For our cloud setup, we use both Azure and AWS.

The most valuable feature is the security provided by the ATP. It is definitely better than the security provided by other firewalls.

The API is available for integration with tools for automation and AI, which is very good.

The interface contains some decentralized tools, so simplifying it would be an improvement.

I would like the option to be able to block the traffic from a specific country in a few clicks.

Some of the implements under artificial intelligence should provide better visibility in terms of my traffic, such as where it originates and where it is going.

Better integration with industry tools would allow me to do quicker automation and reduce my operational costs.

We have been using the Palo Alto Next-Generation firewall for almost five years.

This solution is definitely not scalable. Although it is a next-generation firewall, it has its limitations in terms of policies. At one point in time, it becomes the bottleneck, which is something that we have to optimize.

We are using this firewall at between 10 and 15 locations.

We have been in contact with technical support and we are satisfied with the service.

We also use FortiGate VDOM, although this is for internal protection. The FortiGate interface is simpler in design than Palo Alto.

Prior to Palo Alto, we were using the Cisco ASA platform. When it was through with its lifecycle, we switched. Seeing the next-generation firewall competition in the market, Cisco definitely has a larger portfolio, but it is not as competitive in the security domain. Solutions from Palo Alto and Fortinet are better in this space.

It is easy to install and we did not find the initial setup complex at all. The basic firewall can be set up, and then it takes a little time for the hardening. In total, the deployment can usually be completed within two or three hours.

The pricing is competitive in the market.

Palo Alto NG is definitely a firewall that I recommend for the right size of deployment.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are basically using a double protection layer in which we take care of all our DMV, VPN, tunnels, and internal network. We are basically using it for application based configuration  controlling our traffic on applications with layers four to seven. We are customers of Palo Alto and I'm an information security specialist. 

I like the training material they provide and the reporting is very good. The solution is very easy to configure, and very easy to understand and explain. Compared to firewalls offered by their competitors, I find it easier to use and more thorough. The most important thing the solution provides is, of course, the firewalling up to the application level.

There could be improvement with their logs, especially their CLI. When you go to the command line to understand the command line interface it's tricky and requires a deep understanding of the product. We recently faced one issue where the server side configuration changed and it wasn't replicated at the firewall. It required us to tweak things and now it is working fine. Finally, the HIPS and audio call features could be improved. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

In the past two years I haven't had any issues with the stability. That applies to the hardware, software, upgrades, updates, new feeds. I haven't faced any big issue, you can say that. 

We are using their big boxes, like the 7,000 series. So it's already at that level. We're already using 120 GB, like three 40 gigs and it's working fine for us. You can scale as you wish.
We have over 10,000 people using the service through this firewall. It's working 24/7 and it's been that way for the past two and a half years. 

The initial setup is not complex. It took us 15 to 20 days because we were migrating from the other firewall. The strategy was to take the backup and simultaneously create a leg and transfer to that. The first time we deployed, we used the integrator recommended by the vendor. That worked very well. Our team worked with the integrator. We planned everything and they supervised us. 

We currently have four people helping with maintenance. They are security admins and their job is with the firewalls, like configuring and maintaining and upgrading all those things. 

Yes, we evaluated other options. Cisco was there, as was FortiGate. We were using Juniper at that time, and then Palo Alto came into picture. We carried out a comparison of pricing, support, features, etc. and then we made our choice. It was really the next generation features and application level security that were key to our decision. 

The advice I can give is that this is a good solution: Easy to deploy, easy to manage, easy to understand, reporting is very good, and it will give you the full picture up to the layer seven. Their VPN service is very good. 

The good thing is that whenever you need to train anyone on these devices, it's very easy to explain. Previous firewalls I've used, required a lot more work before you could configure. This isn't like that, it takes maybe 30 minutes and it's done.