Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

Our company uses the solution for monitoring and policies. We monitor data, make rules for firewalls, and allow source IPs to destination IPs with respect to ports and services. 

We also use UR filtering to allow or block things. We have a Prisma Access Firewall that we allow or block for remote users. 

We use the solution in a hybrid model with multiple on-premises instances plus the cloud-based version. 

The solution doesn't need a proxy for the Prisma Access Firewall. 

We can maintain our own policies within the solution and block things from the proxy perspective. 

When creating remote access for users, it would be beneficial to be able to base the object on on-premises or the cloud. We should be able to push policies based on a segregation or as a whole. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable and satisfies my use case. I rate stability an eight out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. 

My focus is limited and I have not needed technical support. 

We are replacing Cisco and our Forcepoint Proxy with the solution. Since we will be using the solution's proxy, it doesn't make sense to have two filtering instances. 

The setup is simple. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

The solution is priced a bit higher than competitors and could be a bit more flexible for customers. I rate pricing a six out of ten. 

There are multiple platforms available that include XDR and the Proxy. 

The solution is very easy to use in comparison to the Forcepoint Proxy. 

Based on my limited use of the solution, I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I primarily use Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the global administration of firewalls and managing the GlobalProtect services. It is used for logging and standard firewall activity, and opening firewall rules. Additionally, it centralizes various tasks on the platform.

The main value of Palo Alto Networks Panorama lies in its ability to centralize management, similar to FortiManager. It provides a single dashboard for all firewalls, allowing centralized control over different feeder systems based on Palo Alto. It's a comprehensive solution for managing firewalls globally.

There is room for improvement in the graphical user interface (GUI), which is becoming outdated, especially the NAT section. However, it still meets expectations and works well for our needs.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for three years.

Stability is rated highly at nine out of ten.

Scalability depends on whether it's a hardware or virtual machine model, and I rate it at eight out of ten.

I rate technical support at seven out of ten. It depends on the case, with room for improvement in both quality and response time.

Neutral

In comparison, I prefer Panorama over FortiManager because Panorama includes all the modules needed for troubleshooting, unlike FortiAnalyzer. From an operational perspective, Panorama is better.

The initial setup for Panorama is simple.

Overall, I rate Panorama an eight out of ten and would recommend it to other users.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is essential for those adopting a centralized landing zone firewall approach as it provides a unified management point for enforcing security policies. It becomes particularly crucial in multicast strategies and cloud environments, streamlining configuration and monitoring across multiple firewalls.

Using Palo Alto Networks has brought numerous benefits to our organization. It effectively addresses security vulnerabilities, incorporates advanced AI technology, ensures reliability, and continually innovates with a demand-driven approach to security features.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its innovation and impressive capacity to handle network traffic efficiently.

A potential improvement for Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be a more competitive pricing structure.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for three years.

It is a fairly stable solution.

I would rate the scalability of the product as an eight out of ten. We have approximately 30 to 40 customers using it.

The technical support is good.

The setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is moderately complex. In my experience, the deployment of Palo Alto Networks Panorama involves considering accessibility, and if it's on-premises, it may face challenges like procurement delays. The cloud version tends to be smoother and more straightforward for deployment.

The pricing structure could use some improvement.

I highly recommend Palo Alto Networks Panorama. It is a mature, solid, and innovative technology. Overall, I would rate it as a ten out of ten.

Panorama is a management server that is used to manage the Palo Alto firewalls.

We have almost 20 firewalls in our environment managed by this particular server. Panorama is an appliance, it's not a firewall. It is a management server, which is used to manage or push the policies. If you want to install a policy on the firewall, or you want to allow legitimate traffic, then you leverage this management server.

It's helped with the centralization of policies and installation. It's helped us do everything in one place instead of one at a time. 

In Panorama, installing the policy, and pushing the policy, it's quite seamless. 

It is a centralized management tool. Instead of logging into each firewall and configuring it or deploying the policies, it's quite easy as everything is in one place. We can push the policy and install the policies centrally instead of individually on each firewall. 

In order to push a policy via Panorama, we need to ensure that the firewall is syncing with the management server. I have hardly found any post-upgrade issue with the Panorama management server or the Palo Alto firewall. They are never out of sync.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It's scalable.

The solution is stable. 

The inbuilt RAM is quite low. If you are increasing the number of firewalls and you want to get this managed via this management server, there are some performance issues. The cost of this product is more. However, the resources they have provided, the inbuilt resources, are less. 

The pricing is quite high.

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

It is a stable solution. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

We have approximately 20 firewalls, which is integrated with Panorama, and it's doing pretty good.

This solution is like the backbone of inbound and outbound services. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

In terms of scalability, it should be able to manage all the firewalls. That said, you need to consider capacity planning down the line for the number of resources, like the CPU memory, if it is low. How many resources are required to be increased to manage these number of firewalls is determined. Capacity planning definitely is required if you're looking for a scalable solution.

Right now, we have no plans to increase usage. We might not look at any increase until five or six years later. 

Technical support has been very good. 

Positive

Cisco does have this centralized management feature as well. They have an ASDM in the Cisco firewall, which is nothing more than a centralized management server. Even Nokia and Check Point have management servers.

Palo Alto is never out of sync with Panorama. However, I find I have issues with Check Point and syncing. We often need to troubleshoot in those scenarios. 

We have Fortinet firewalls. Fortinet is a market leader in terms of Gartner metrics. We have Check Point firewalls as well. That said, Palo Alto is more into the cyber security solution. Everyone is following the footprints of Palo Alto as they were the first to imagine the industry, provide the necessary cybersecurity solutions and next-generation firewalls, and innovate on everything.

The setup itself is very simple and straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

In terms of maintenance, in terms of security, we do require additional resources. Once the security infrastructure is compromised, it'll need a business outage. So we require additional resources in the firewall technology.

The deployment was handled in-house. 

We have definitely seen an ROI. 

When it comes to pricing, compared to the OTC and MRC values, it's really high. They are the market leaders and due to their monopoly, whatever they will demand, we have to pay.

I would rate it five out of five in terms of value for money, however.

I've looked at almost every other product over the last 15 years. However, Palo Alto offers the best cybersecurity solutions. 

Palo Alto definitely a market leader in terms of firewall technology. 

They have good features.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

My clients use Palo Alto Networks Panorama for centralized management of multiple firewalls across various locations. It allows them to easily oversee and configure all their firewalls through a single interface, streamlining security management across their network infrastructure.

The most valuable aspect of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for me is the centralized management of multiple firewalls. It saves time, provides consolidated visibility into my network, and allows me to configure all firewalls from one web interface, eliminating the need to access each firewall separately.

In the future, it would be beneficial if Panorama could include a firewall assurance feature similar to Skybox. While each firewall has its policy optimizer, a consolidated policy optimizer in Panorama could further enhance firewall management and optimization.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for over ten years.

Panorama is stable.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable and can support up to 1,000 devices, making it suitable for various network sizes. In terms of clients, it is mainly used by larger customers with more than ten firewalls. Some smaller customers with six or eight firewalls may not opt for Panorama, but those with ten or more find it beneficial for centralized management.

I find Palo Alto Networks' technical support to be good, especially with premium support. The initial support level is handled by us, and if we encounter issues beyond our scope, Palo Alto's support team is efficient in resolving them. I would rate the support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

Installing Palo Alto Networks Panorama is easy, and connecting firewalls is a straightforward process. Deployment typically requires just one person, usually the firewall administrator. Maintenance is also easy, especially for those familiar with managing individual firewalls, and Panorama serves additional functions like log collection and setting up SD-WAN functionality, making it highly useful for networks with multiple firewalls.

In terms of return on investment, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is worthwhile, especially for larger networks with more than ten firewalls. The time saved and the consolidated view it provides investment pay off quickly, often within a couple of months.

In terms of pricing, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is moderate. It is very affordable when compared to more expensive firewalls. The license is yearly, and the price typically includes the initial license and support, with subsequent years requiring only twenty percent of the initial license cost for support. It is negotiable, and the overall cost depends on your network setup and the type of firewalls you are using.

Overall, I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama as an eight out of ten.

Even though there was a dedicated team to monitor the logs with the SIEM platform, I would use the solution when there is a potential outbreak to provide a particular tool to view the effects of the outbreak on my environment.

It was a good functional tool. When we had multiple Palo Alto devices to be managed, it provided a lot of visibility onto those solutions. It was a good and useful tool.

The solution helped us consolidate and use logs.

The UI was fine. The visualization would be almost similar to Palo Alto Firewalls.

Overall, the functionality was very good.

It was a stable product.

It's easy to set up. 

I don't have any real comments in terms of areas of improvement. 

The scalability is limited. 

It is an expensive product. 

The last time I used the solution was six months ago. I recently switched jobs. I previously used the solution for about three or four years. 

The solution was stable and reliable. There were no bugs or glitches, and it didn't crash or freeze. I'd rate the stability of the solution nine out of ten. 

It's not hugely scalable. It has limited scalability. That said, it's good. It offers what is requested. It depends on your initial planning and pricing, so it's not great in scalability. However, I would give it an overall scalability rating of seven out of ten.

At my old company, we had six to eight people using the solution. 

I did raise some tickets with technical support, and I found them to be helpful and responsive. 

Positive

It was pretty easy to set up. I did not find the implementation complex. I'd rate the ease of deployment nine out of ten. 

The pricing of the product is high. They aren't very cost-effective. That said, they do provide high value to organizations. 

I've seen three other devices like FortiGate and FortiManager as well as FortiAnalyzer. However, I can't make apples-to-apples comparisons between the solutions. I can say that the interface of Panorama is better in general, and Panorama does offer very good visibility.

I was a customer and end-user. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our customers are using the product.

The solution offers good logging features. 

The management is great. 

It is easy to set up.

The solution is stable.

I can scale well. 

Using a Palo Alto solution is very straightforward. 

We have faced some challenges with the solution. We had Panorama in the cloud, and then we used Panorama to manage the on-prem firewalls. Then we had some network-centric architecture to connect to on-prem, where we had two separate Palo Alto firewalls on the cloud. From there, we had a direct connect, external direct connect to the on-prem. In that case, the issue we faced was that whenever the traffic left AWS, it went with any one of the subnets, either from availabilities on one subnet or availabilities on two subnets. When we configured Panorama, it was actually behind a NAT device on two separate IP signals, and there were challenges around that.

When we were deploying Panorama in AWS, there were some issues with Panorama deployment in AWS. I was the first customer to deploy Panorama in AWS, and I raised a case with both AWS and Panorama. Then, in the next Panorama release, they enhanced some features, and both came up in the same version. I had to wait for two or three months to get to a resolution. 

Sometimes technical support is slow to respond. 

The solution is expensive. 

Panorama can be a bit difficult compared to other Palo Alto solutions. It would be ideal if they could simplify it a bit. 

I've been using the solution for two years. 

Overall, the product is stable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We haven't had an issue with scalability.

We work mainly with enterprise-level organizations. 

In our region, technical support is not so good. We need to wait if we are reaching out with a P1 case. Sometimes we have to wait for two or three hours. That can be an issue.

I do also work with various other vendors. 

The initial setup is very simple and quite straightforward. It was not overly complex. It's been two years now since I implemented the solution, and therefore I cannot recall exactly how long the deployment took. While the process was smooth, we did face some integration issues, for example, integrating the active standard Palo Alto to Panorama.

It's a costly product. All Palo Alto products are pretty expensive. Nowadays, people are looking for security and something that offers easy management. Therefore, Palo Alto can easily charge what they want. 

We're partners. We handle pre-sales and implementation of the solution for clients. 

It's a good product. However, if a company wants to deploy the solution, it should first do a proper study and design it properly. Otherwise, they will likely run into issues. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use Panorama in order to centrally manage our firewall.

Basically, in my firewalls, I usually create new signatures and deploy them for each endpoint firewall in each region. It's great for creating signatures and activating activities.

It's pretty user-friendly. The user interface is good. 

The product has been stable. 

It's not part of my role to connect other devices to Panorama, so I don't know how the integration works. I maybe need a better understanding of how the policies of the signature work. For example, what does it mean to exclude an IP, and what are the policy rules and priorities? I need more knowledge about the signature policy and priorities.

Instead of searching their knowledge base in their website, maybe they can interact with us in the user interface to explain things better. If they had pop-ups to help guide us, we might get fewer failures along the way. Small notifications would be quite helpful. 

I've been working with the solution for one year. 

It is very stable, from my experience, at least. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. I'd rate it an eight or nine out of ten in terms of stability.

I don't deal with scaling the solution. I am not sure what is possible. 

We have about five to ten users on the solution right now. 

I had some interactions with the technical support of Palo Alto.

They have been pretty good overall. We are mostly satisfied. 

Positive

We are using Aqua Sec. 

I did not handle the initial setup process. I can't speak to how it went. 

Our technical team manages the initial implementation process. 

In my experience in general, Palo Alto is very expensive.

We tested Palo Alto solution for Kubernetes, and the Aqua Sec and Aqua Sec was much cheaper than Palo Alto. If Palo Alto were less expensive like them, maybe we would've chosen them over Aqua Sec.

I've never compared the solution to other options. The company uses it and therefore I do too. 

We are working with version ten or somewhere around that. I am not sure of the exact version. 

I'm an end-user and I am non-technical. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.