Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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. 

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.

My customers use this solution in their companies. 

Especially for big, worldwide clients, one of the most valuable features is being able to create some rules to place on the security groups.

We have had some issues in the past because integrating a new device is not intuitive. If there is some room for improvement, that would be it.

I'm not an expert on the matter, but I would like to see more capabilities regarding automation and integration. We are seeing a trend where the clients are asking for integrations with European tools. I know the solution is quite integral with all kinds of tools, but there are some different tools here in the market in Europe, so this is important. 

The menu is full of options, which is good in some ways, but for a newbie it can be a little bit overwhelming and you need to properly understand it before starting to work with it. I think the ramp up at the beginning is quite intense.

I have been familiar with this solution for two years. 

The solution is quite stable. Among our clients, it is actually one of the preferred solutions. 

Our clients who use this solution are enterprise companies. We have around 50 people at our company working with the solution. The number of admins needed for the solution depends on the company, but most of our clients have over 15 admins. 

The initial setup is kind of easy. I think it takes about half a day to set it up properly. 

The pricing is considered a little bit expensive, but depending on the client, it's worth it. Again, it depends on the client, but they generally consider it a good solution.

The payment structure depends on the contract that the client has with Palo Alto. I think usually the cloud solution is charged monthly.

I also work with Fortinet, and I think their solution is more intuitive. The menus are less charged, and I found the documentation to be a little bit more clear.

I would tell people considering this product that you always have the support of Palo Alto. They can be plan B just in case something happens while configuring a new device, for example, to ensure everything gets configured the way it should be at the beginning.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

We are using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for security and access controls.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama has some bugs that could be fixed.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for approximately one year.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is stable.

The scalability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good.

We have less than 100 people using this solution in my organization.

I have used the support from Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

I rate the support from Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is of a medium level of difficulty.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house.

There is a license needed to use Palo Alto Networks Panorama. The cost is not that important, what is important is meeting all the requirements and security features.

We decided to use Palo Alto Networks Panorama over other solutions because we have the strategy sheet which defines our requirements, and our requirements were mostly met. We have a standardized service we want to deliver when it comes to a firewall we use Palo Alto Networks Panorama, if we use load balancers, we use F5, and for networks, we use Cisco. We have certain things that are already defined as a criterion for us to follow.

My advice to others is if this solution fits their use case then they should use it.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight 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. 

We are a cybersecurity business, so we are a Palo Alto reseller and integrator. We also use Palo Alto to run our firewalls in our own environment. 

It's really the central management component that helps us. From a configuration point of view, when we are implementing it for large organizations where the customer owns a hundred firewalls, it's just easy to manage them all at one central location. I think that's probably one of the best features from a visibility component.

Price is probably one of the biggest things that we struggle with, specifically with Palo, and that's across their whole portfolio. Also, the tech support could be better.

I have been working with this solution for about five years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is easy to scale.

On a scale of one to five, I would rate the technical support as a four. 

Positive

The setup process is simple and straightforward. 

If I were to rate the pricing of Palo on a scale of one to five, with one being really high and five being a good, reasonable price, I would rate Palo as a three.

We generally compare Palo Alto with the offerings from Check Point because they both seem to have the majority of the market share here in my region.
From a stability point of view, I think Panorama is better. Check Point is struggling with their current software releases along those lines, and Panorama is very good at releasing new features along those lines. Palo is a lot faster than a lot of the competitors on the market.

I would rate Panorama as an eight out of ten.

This solution allows us to centrally manage all devices. It's deployed on-premises.

There are 10,000 employees in my organization. We have two or three data centers across the globe.

It's easy to deploy any software or policies. Even if you have multiple devices across the globe, if you have urgent searching or maybe policy enforcement, you can do it easily.

The interface is easy to understand and manage. It's an intelligent device and can capture any spyware or vulnerabilities.

It's a leader in the market, and they observe the market requirement and upgrade the software accordingly.

The price could be lower. I would like to see remote VPN, like the Cisco client.

I've been working with Panorama for four years.

Panorama is stable.

It's scalable.

Setup isn't simple, but it's easy to migrate from another vendor.

Right now, we use 40 employees to manage the solution.

Cost-wise, it's very expensive. If you want to go with another vendor, Cisco and Fortinet are good for medium-size networks.

I would rate the cost 4 out of 5.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

We use this solution because it provides us with a consistent security profile no matter the location. Regardless of users, we use the same configuration. 

We also use Panorama for management. Currently, all of our users are working from home — this solution has helped us manage everything. 

Over the next four years, we are planning on moving all of our data centers onto the cloud.  

Before I joined this organization, they experienced some issues when trying to set up zone protection parameters. Last week I applied a zone protection profile; for each and every branch, I had to apply a zone protection profile or modify existing metrics — I needed to physically go to each branch. When we originally deployed Panorama, we were managing the firewalls individually. After implementing all those firewalls and changing all of the templates, it's really hard to modify them. 

You can't just modify them with a single click, you need to physically go to each individual branch and make the changes yourself — we can't directly seal all of the fireworks. This needs to be improved. 

With version 9.1, when configuring it, if something goes wrong, then it reverts back to your original settings automatically. This is a nice feature but it's not available on the standard firewalls. If we didn't have Panorama and I was setting up some remote Palo Alto firewalls, after implementing my configurations, if I were to lose the configurations then I would lose firewall access. This isn't the case with other firewalls like Cisco and Juniper SRX where you can just put in a reminder in the last 10 minutes. 

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

Besides the odd bug, Panorama is stable. From a management point of view, it's good. Even though we now have 25 firewalls, with a single click, we can add and submit a request. With a single click, we can apply changes to all 25 firewalls. Upgrading our remote locations, the firewalls, logs, and the reporting is all very easy. We can easily add more power and stability, it's nice.

GlobalProtect is a great extension that you can add on. If something goes wrong with our cloud solution, then it will automatically fall back to our local physical firewalls across the globe. We have four different locations that GlobalProtect automatically connects to. At the moment, our company is expanding so we are adding more clients. 

The technical support is pretty good. The best part about Palo Alto is that you can find answers with a simple Google search. Compared to other vendors, all of their technical data is online — for all of their solutions. Still, sometimes we prefer to use support. Sometimes it takes time as their technical team has to regenerate our issues in their lab, etc. 

The initial setup can be complex. As I mentioned before, making modifications is very difficult. Before implementing, you need to plan carefully.

Our engineer made some mistakes when he was setting it up; we still experience some complications due to that as everything is already in place and we can't change it. 

Licenses are available on a one to three-year basis. If you go for a one-year license, you won't get much of a discount. We have a three-year license for all of our firewalls. Currently, we have 25 firewall licenses.

Currently, we have around 20 TB of data. We are in the process of upgrading our licenses because we are adding more and more files.

The price of the licenses could be lower. Still, because we have Panorama with 25 firewalls, Palo Alto gives us a good discount. 

I would definitely recommend Panorama to others. Compared to all of the other firewall vendors, Palo Alto is very secure. Personally, I'd say it's the best firewall vendor on the market. When combined with WildFire, it's highly secure; just make sure you configure it properly as there are a lot of viruses out there. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Panorama a rating of nine.