Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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. 

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 doing the centralized network for the global base. We have several countries with different firewalls being used and we are also cataloging the log to keep data on that. When we're having some issues, we can track back the details via Palo Alto Networks.

Most firewalls are the same, however, it depends on the service. If they have a good service, that means they guarantee that our business does not have any impact. That is a very important part of business today.

Palo Alto is very user-friendly.

It's a stable solution

Technical support is quite helpful.

We can scale well.

The initial setup was complex.

The licensing costs are quite high.

I would like there to already be a log centralized for the things, however, I don't see any soft security operation center or something that can make it a regular report. When we need some GDPR policy, we just have a one-pack we deploy and tune by ourselves a little bit to suit our organization. We'd like to have something more standardized for this purpose. It would be more of a value-add. 

We'd like more log monitoring in general.

I've been using the solution for five years already.

While it was stable, the one thing that I am not sure about is the Cortex Advantage. Maybe we have to leave it again as the life cycle of the hardware is almost finished. We are looking for some other solutions as well.

We have the full-scale of the Panorama solution. We are using the Cortex, the XDR from Palo Alto, as well and link all of them together to go to the Cortex network intelligence. We can scale when we need to.

There are about 5,000 users on the solution right now. 

We are impressed with the Thailand technical team.

When we have some trouble or issues happen, they always are there to help us guide us to solve the issue, and sometimes they even escalate the case to the global team.

Positive

We have certain firewalls in AWS and in Azure as well.

We had a complex initial setup. It wasn't that simple to execute. We do have help with deployment, however. We have a deputy to help us to deploy but Palo Alto also supports us as well.

The deployment itself was quick. In two months we were up and running.

We only have two people on our end looking at maintenance. The company that handled deployment had four people and also Palo Alto has some specialists and engineers. They had two guys, the implementer had four and we had two more - we were eight people in total.

We have a vendor that helps us. They also take care of the maintenance. 

We haven't noted an ROI yet. We'd like to see some reporting on that.

It's an expensive solution.

We pay a yearly fee. It is just one fee and everything is covered under it, including support.

We're a customer and end-user.

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We work with other firewall brands that are also quite impressive as well. 

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is similar to Cisco FMC, for centralized management and monitoring of multiple Palo Alto firewalls. You can push your configuration from Palo Alto Networks Panorama to all your Palo Alto Networks firewalls. You then receive different data reports, threat reports, threat logs, and system logs. You don't need to log into each firewall to get that information or configure it because you can see or do it all in Palo Alto Networks Panorama. If there is any issue or link failure, you'll find that information on Palo Alto Networks Panorama, so the product is best for the centralized management of firewalls.

For a few projects, we used Palo Alto Panorama to manage the firewalls.

A valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is reporting because it gives you different reports on data, logs, and threats. It has easy policy management and control, NAT, PBF, decryption, and visibility.

I also like the centralized firewall management feature of the product.

The technical support for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is responsive.

A bottleneck in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is the licensing. The pricing and licensing model for the product is expensive and can be complicated, or it could be because I'm more familiar with Cisco licensing, which I find brilliant and easy, compared to Panorama licensing, which could be hell.

Another area for improvement in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is report generation.

It is expensive and suitable mostly in big enterprise environment.

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

It is stable.

It is a scalable solution.

The technical support team for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is very responsive. The support staff will call you even after the case is closed, asking you how the support was and that he hopes the same issue doesn't resurface. Panorama support is excellent.

Positive

I found the initial setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama easy.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is more expensive than its counterpart Cisco FMC, although I have some clients who don't care about the budget but care more about extra features.

Recently, my company upgraded the version of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for one of the clients, version 10.0.

If you are using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the first time, I'll advise you not to use it if you only have one to two firewalls or if you only have a small environment. Better use the product if you have four to six firewalls and want centralized management.

I'll also tell you that Palo Alto Networks Panorama requires a higher level of technicality, so you must study a lot before using it. It would be best to familiarize yourself with licensing, threat protection, decryption policies, app override, DoS protection, etc. Still, I can say that Palo Alto Networks Panorama is an excellent product to use.

My rating for the product is eight out of ten.

I'm a customer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

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. 

We require Palo Alto Networks Panorama to safeguard internet access for our users. Additionally, we need features such as URL filtering and sandboxing, among other useful functionalities.

The Palo Alto Networks Panorama was highly useful to us. However, it is important to consider that Palo Alto is a specific solution, and therefore one must be certain about their requirements before investing in it as it can sometimes be overburdening and expensive. Despite this, Palo Alto offers a plethora of features that can be useful if required. The product was great, and whenever there was a bug or issue, they released updates quickly. Additionally, their support was very good.

Feature-wise, Palo Alto Networks Panorama had a mix of everything. With the centralized view for the firewall, it was really convenient to have the same rule set for all. We could check everything from the logs, do some packet tracing, and more. In the beginning, we had BrightCloud as a database provider, but we eventually moved to Palo Alto Networks Panorama, which was also convenient. So, we can say that the ease of use was a big factor.

The pricing of the solution could be considered an area of improvement, as it is a comprehensive and feature-rich product that may include features that are not needed by some companies. Therefore, the solution should have a more competitive pricing structure.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for three to four years. There are a lot of upgrades, so I don't clearly remember the version.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. I may consider increasing the solution's usage.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

In the beginning, the solution was hosted in a data center that was not owned by us but by Verizon. However, when we migrated to SD-WAN, it became cloud-based.

The infrastructure was managed by Verizon towards the end. Therefore, any issues or problems, as well as room modifications, were raised by us through a ticket, and they took care of everything related to the infrastructure. So, it wasn't something we had to deal with directly.

I have seen a return on the investment. But maybe we can see higher ROI with other solutions at the moment. So, we are a bit tight on budget now.

I would tell those planning to buy the product that if you really need those features and you are able to afford the price, go for it because it will probably be hard to get by any other product with the same features. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

Our primary use cases are for web security, antivirus, and remote browsing. I'm a senior security specialist and we are integrators. 

The product is very efficient. 

This is a relatively expensive solution and I wouldn't recommend it for a stand-alone deployment. 

I've used this solution for five years.  

The solution is generally stable. There can be issues but it's generally related to power supply issues a company might have.

The solution is scalable. 

The technical support is very good. They're very responsive and always have engineers available to help. 

Positive

The initial setup takes around one week and is complex. All other firewall configurations are easier than Check Point. If you face any configuration issue, the only solution is to contact the Check Point team. Deployment generally requires an engineer. 

Licensing costs are cheaper than Palo Alto but more than other solutions. It's quite expensive. 

I recommend this solution unless you're in a location with a lot of power cuts. If you work for a software company, I'll always recommend this solution. If you're looking for a stand-alone deployment, then I would recommend Fortinet. I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We are using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for a firewall between the DMZ and the enterprise.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its ease of use.

The solution can improve by providing unique reports in relation to the function of which you choose the firewall to do.

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

We have used the solution for a long time and it has been operating steadily. We have not had issues.

I rate the scalability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of ten. We are using the solution in enterprise companies. There are approximately 3,000 to 4,000 people using the solution.

We used the support for some hardware inquiries and for some issues. They were about to resolve the issues.

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is simple. The implementation is done in stages. The first stage, takes approximately three to four hours.

We have our own in-house team that does the implementation.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is expensive.

If the use case fits the solution then it will work very well.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama eight out of ten.

We use Palo Alto Networks Panorama firewall, rule and policies management.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is the simplicity of rule management. Both this device group and template management are very easy to use. 

Palo Alto Networks Panorama currently lacks the capability of integrating with other software, such as AlgoSec to simplify rule management and schedule management. However, this feature has been requested by the company and it is uncertain if Palo Alto will implement it in the future. Additionally, the UI needs improvement, it is too slow.

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

The solution has frequent upgrades that reduce the stability.

I rate the stability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a six out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable.

I have been using the same management software from other vendors, such as Check Point and Fortinet, but they are not as scalable as Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

We have approximately 25 people using the solution.

We do not plan to increase our usage because we are migrating to Zscaler and Cisco. Zscaler has some scalability advantages over Palo Alto Networks Panorama and this is why we are switching.

I rate the scalability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten.

There are a few areas where Palo Alto Networks Panorama support could be improved. Specifically, when we encounter issues, it takes a significant amount of for support to resolve them, particularly when it comes to coding-related problems. We are unsure if they have invested in research and development in this area.

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama took a long time to complete because there was not a lot of documentation.

We used the support from Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the implementation. They were very professional and helpful. We used five people for the deployment of the solution.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama should be reduced. We pay for the solution annually.

We have acquired Palo Alto Networks Panorama for a three-year period, and we are selecting firewall options based on our specific needs, which may result in purchasing a DNS Security solution separately.

We use five people for the maintenance of the solution.

The solution is easy to use and superior to other competitors. Additionally, there are occasional graphical or visual glitches that also take a while for them to address through updates. The length of time it takes to resolve these issues depends on their severity.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten.

The solution is good compared to the competition, but the support is not up to standard.

Our primary use case is for layered firewalls and we are adding these firewalls to the panorama.

The most valuable item is centralization and we can get all of the router bases in a single window. 

I am observing that whenever pushing our configurations sometimes the configuration will not push properly and then we have to go to the individual firewall and save it again.

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

The stability is very good and once again I would rate it an eight out of ten.

The scalability is excellent. I would say on a scale of one to ten it rates an eight. We have around twenty who are using the solution.

Technical support is very good. From the time we do the initial ticket for assistance we see a response within the day.

The initial setup was done by the best through one of our senior network engineers.

The pricing is pretty average. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it a five.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven on a scale of one to ten.

We provide Palo Alto Networks Panorama to customers in the education and government niches, for example, for state and defense accounts. The product is for logging and log management.

I found logging and management features the most valuable in Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

Another good feature of the product is that it lets you define global firewall policies and templates. For example, if you have standard procedures, you can create a single template and apply it to all your firewalls. This feature is attractive to many users.

I also like that Palo Alto Networks Panorama is easy to configure and manage.

Storage in Palo Alto Networks Panorama needs improvement.

My company also experienced deployment issues when the product was first installed, particularly when binding with the firewall. It's not as user-friendly because not everyone can deploy it without some knowledge.

Updating Palo Alto Networks Panorama was also a bit challenging when upgrading your firewall, so that's another area for improvement.

I've worked with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the last three or four years.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a stable product, but sometimes, the patch creates some issues, so it's a nine out of ten.

Regarding scalability, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a scalable solution. You can scale it whenever you want. You can add storage. Scaling it is easy, so it's a nine out of ten for me.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama technical support is good. Regarding response time, it depends if you're getting partner support or direct support from Palo Alto Networks.

Sometimes you need to wait a maximum of four hours to receive support, and sometimes, it just takes half an hour. It also depends on the type of ticket you open. If it's a critical ticket, you'll get a call from technical support within fifteen to twenty minutes.

I also like that Palo Alto Networks extended support to distributors, where you can raise a ticket directly with a distributor.

I've used AlgoSec, and compared to Palo Alto Networks Panorama, AlgoSec supports other OEM firewalls, which means you can configure Fortinet, Palo Alto, Cisco, and other firewalls on it. In contrast, Palo Alto Networks Panorama only supports Palo Alto Networks devices, which is a drawback.

Otherwise, if you compare Palo Alto Networks Panorama with other products, such as Fortinet and Checkpoint, feature-wise, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is more complete. In contrast, Checkpoint and Fortinet are only thirty to thirty-five percent complete.

If not for the OEM firewall restrictions, I'd rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama as ten out of ten compared to other products.

The initial setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be pretty easy if you've had some training. It's not like you can go and do it and find it easy without a guide or training. Before implementing the product, you'll need at least one to two weeks of training because it'll be complicated to go hands-on without some Palo Alto Networks Panorama training.

Pricing for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is always high. If you're going to sell the product, you always have to talk about the technology because it should be about the solution rather than the price, or else you'll lose potential customers.

My company works with Palo Alto Networks Panorama, including other Palo Alto Networks solutions, such as MDR, NGFW, and SOAR.

My company is a system integrator rather than the end customer. My company provides and sells Palo Alto Networks Panorama to end customers.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is deployed on-premises, particularly by customers in the government.

A state data center where my company deployed Palo Alto Networks Panorama had fifteen thousand to eighteen thousand users. The number of firewalls was eighty, with two Palo Alto Networks systems.

My rating for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is nine out of ten.