Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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.

We deploy Prisma SD-WAN for our NetBackBot and sell Fortinet SD-WAN and Fortinet SRC solutions. We also provide both on-premises and account solutions. Our customers focus on security rather than DLP.

Palo Alto integrates the whole policy into the platform and deploys all policies to every end device, making it easy to manage and deploy policies for IT departments.

Panorama integrates security management by allowing easy modification of policy by account, IP, or application. This flexibility helps IT departments securely manage Internet security.

Palo Alto needs to improve deployment by making it easier to deploy an agent to a desktop. Currently, it's complex since the product cannot utilize the AD serving for deployment, which would be a desired improvement in the near future.

Panorama is capable of managing complex network environments. Its scalability is rated nine out of ten.

I am satisfied with their support and would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

We used to work with Fortinet products. However, our focus has shifted, though Fortinet products remain an alternative for our customers who are familiar with its platform.

The initial setup can be complicated, specifically when deploying to desktops using batch files.

Palo Alto Panorama might appear expensive to some enterprises, but its powerful platform justifies the cost.

We evaluate solutions like Fortinet, which has advantages in pricing and functionalities such as user-friendly deployment.

I would recommend this solution to customers, though it can be very expensive. As an alternative, Fortinet solutions are also recommended.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We have multiple firewalls in our infrastructure. Palo Alto Networks Panorama serves as the management interface for all our Palo Alto firewalls. As our organization has grown, there has been one company initially, but now three companies have merged into one, and we have increased the number of firewalls. For instance, we have a Palo Alto firewall in our Azure stack and a core firewall from another company that we’ve integrated into our data center. We use Palo Alto Panorama to manage all our Palo Alto firewalls across our infrastructure.

We have centralized management for all Palo Alto firewalls. With the merger of three companies, each previously operating their own Palo Alto firewalls, we can now manage them efficiently through our operations using Panorama. Our network has become more complex as we run various services, including SD-WAN, across three sites. While the SD-WAN operates through a separate firewall, our core firewall remains Palo Alto. Additionally, we use Palo Alto as a perimeter firewall for our Azure stack. In total, we manage four firewalls with Panorama. We monitor various traffic types, including FTP, browser traffic, applications, and unified threat management. We also have SSL inspection enabled and are actively managing and monitoring SSL tunnels and threat management.

Palo Alto Panorama offers robust logging and reporting capabilities, allowing us to extract reports in a user-friendly GUI format with graphical representations. For example, we can track bytes sent and received for specific applications and users since we use Palo Alto XDR for analysis, reporting, and forensics.

We benefit from a certain level of customization in our reports, utilizing predefined templates and tailored reports. This includes user activity reports, application reports, and SaaS platform reports. We forward logs to a separate SIEM solution, enabling us to monitor TCP and inspect SSL traffic.

The logs from our virtual appliances show potential for improvement, particularly regarding their deployment in hypervisors like VMware, Proxmox, or Azure Stack. Monitoring the internal traffic between hosts with these hypervisors could be enhanced. While predefined reports are available, we often require customized reports tailored to the specific areas involving hypervisors. 

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

We use Palo Alto as a perimeter firewall for our public network, which can support nearly 40,000 users daily. About 7,000 to 10,000 users connect to the Internet through this firewall.

In addition, we utilize Palo Alto Global VPN for remote access. We have around 869 VPN users, primarily for remote work or when a government advisory requires the entire staff to connect. This solution integrates seamlessly with our Palo Alto firewall.

I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It's important to reference authoritative sources like Gartner. We selected the product based on their ratings and assessments. In terms of capability, Palo Alto remains one of the top solutions for on-premises security, XDRs, and cloud security posture management. 

I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The support team is very knowledgeable. We only contact them when our partner support or integrated support cannot resolve an issue. They respond quickly, joining within an hour if there’s a critical situation.

Positive

We deployed our Palo Alto solution four years ago for the Azure Stack implementation. The complete deployment took around three months, as it's a comprehensive cloud solution similar to Azure or AWS.

If I were to replace my Palo Alto firewall today, I estimate it would take at least seven days to implement. Given our complex infrastructure, which includes SD-WANs and connections between three different data centers into one main center, this timeframe excludes the planning phase.

We are aligned with Palo Alto, as they are our partners. At times, we need to engage Palo Alto support directly due to our subscription with them, which was also established during the initial deployment.

Managing multiple firewalls across three large identities was becoming quite challenging. To address this, we implemented Palo Alto Panorama, which allows us to manage all our firewalls from a single interface. This has significantly improved our efficiency and manageability. It also helps us better use our current human resources; otherwise, we would need to hire several experts in Palo Alto to oversee the three data centers, which would be a cumbersome task.

Palo Alto solutions are more expensive than other products, but this often depends on an organization’s specific requirements. The level of security and features needed will influence the decision. For example, VPN access is essential for our corporate users and consultants, as company policy mandates that they connect via VPN to access the corporate network. When purchasing bulk licenses, we receive discounts, which makes the cost comparison with other solutions more favorable.

When it comes to security, complexity often accompanies it. With advancements over time and the integration of AI and new technologies, we're seeing improved features in the GUI compared to some online solutions. 

The ongoing improvements with the latest firmware updates are a positive sign. Still, virtual firewalls or appliances face a challenge: They could provide more comprehensive information than what is currently available in the reports.

We also use the VPN functionality, which became crucial during COVID-19. Initially, we had around 610 users, and now that number has risen to about 890 users who connect remotely through Palo Alto GlobalProtect VPN. We've never considered switching to another solution because it is stable and reliable for our needs.

You encounter news about zero-day vulnerabilities and firewall firmware updates when browsing the internet. We've been using our Palo Alto solution for the past four years, and during this time, some devices were procured five years ago, while others, including our Palo Alto firewall, were acquired around three years ago. Each identity had IT staff coordinating individual updates, which was inefficient. Now, with a unified approach through Panorama, we can monitor and manage zero-day vulnerabilities more effectively. Panorama plays a crucial role in ensuring timely updates. The features we utilize depend on the complexity of our network and the number of applications hosted in our environment.

Suppose your infrastructure is extensive, and you need a reliable, secure SDR, UTM, and firewall solution. In that case, choosing a product with comprehensive capabilities that you can rely on for at least the next five years is crucial. Proper planning is essential; if you purchase something that isn’t reliable or only plan for six months to a year, it may not be appropriate for your needs. Palo Alto is one of the best secure solutions for organizations with complex infrastructures, such as multiple sites in different regions.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine-point five out of ten.

I have used Panorama as a log collector and for administration. It's primarily used for optimizing firewall policy posts and reporting.

Panorama has improved the organization by enabling log collection, administration, and optimization of firewall policies. It supports policy migration and offers platform stability and decent uptime.

The valuable features of Panorama include log collection, policy optimization, ability to migrate policies from other platforms, and platform stability and uptime.

There needs to be an improvement in integrating AIOps functionalities into Panorama. I'd like to see a seamless integration with both on-prem and cloud environments. Furthermore, they should address the static nature of current additions instead of adding them through plugins.

There are no significant stability issues. The uptime and platform stability are fairly decent.

Panorama does not bring in a lot of complexities. It's a straightforward setup, allowing licenses to add more devices without significant complications.

The support has been good, benefiting from the partnership channels established with Palo Alto.

Positive

I previously worked with Cisco ALDM before using Palo Alto Panorama.

I am not privy to a lot of the pricing details.

I have experience with AlgoSec or Tufin, but they are not exactly replacements for Panorama.

To manage network security effectively, if the intent is cloud first, leverage Streta Cloud Manager. For hybrid or on-prem deployments, Panorama is suitable.

I would rate it a seven 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 primarily use it for firewall monitoring, reviews, and policy-level monitoring.

Threat prevention and traffic monitoring are the most valuable features for us. We use them the most.

There is room for improvement in response time for tech support.

I have been using this solution for three years. 

The stability is good, so I would rate it around nine.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The customer service and support team is okay because the response time depends on the case. For example, it can take a lot of time if they don't have a readily available solution.

If compared with Cisco, I find Panorama is better and easier to use.

Our technical team did the setup for us.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.