Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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. 

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. 

Palo Alto Networks Panorama has improved the way my company works, which is why my company uses it.

What I like about Palo Alto Networks Panorama is that it's stable and setting it up isn't complex.

My company's getting whatever it needs from Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but in the cloud, there's an issue with CPU management, and that's an area for improvement. Though the normal data traffic doesn't go through the management interface, whenever there's an increase in the throughput, CPU management becomes high. If you increase the load, CPU management spikes, and it's what needs to be taken care of in Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

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

Palo Alto Networks Panorama has good stability. I didn't see any instability from it, though at times, the CPU goes high in terms of usage, and that's what you need to take care of.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a scalable solution.

Technical support for Palo Alto Networks Panorama, in my experience, was initially good, but now the wait time is longer. My company has a dedicated account manager, so it gets support, but in general, the response time is longer.

The initial setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama was straightforward. I didn't see any complexity. It was a normal firewall configuration. I haven't done any new deployment of Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but in the cloud environment, it didn't take much time for me, and you can complete a setup within one to two hours.

We implemented Palo Alto Networks Panorama through a vendor team by Palo Alto, specifically for the on-premises deployment, to migrate from Check Point to Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but in the cloud environment, as it is a VM, we did it ourselves.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is deployed everywhere, particularly in the public cloud and on-premises as well.

My company is just a customer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but because it's a big company, it has a dedicated account manager in Palo Alto.

My company uses the solution extensively. There are more than six Panoramas. Forty to fifty firewalls are managed currently through Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

I'm rating Palo Alto Networks Panorama nine out of ten. It's a good solution. What would make my rating a ten is if the CPU management spike issue was addressed and if the delayed response of technical support was addressed as well. A few years ago, the response time from support was immediate, but now, there's a delay with the response, even though my company has a dedicated account manager from Palo Alto Networks Panorama, and this makes you think about a midsized company with no account manager in terms of how much time it gets a response from Palo Alto support.

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. 

We use the solution for segregation. We also use it as a gateway in order to do URL filtering on the DNI as a security measure. We use the product's global protective VPN as well. 

The application ID, this kind of technology, has a very high-level check. It makes everything more secure for your enterprise network. Otherwise, fake applications can sneak in. 

If you're using application ID, they check the high side, the traffic, and they analyze everything. They see if it's a normal application. They're working closely with each vendor, to make it easy to identify applications. For the hackers or malicious traffic, they can see it and block it. 

I like the user ID and the application ID as it's easy to identify the popular applications and the EZT does the security checking in regards to the user and the application ID.

The initial setup is very easy.

The solution is easy to manage. It has a good interface as well.

The solution is stable.

The product can scale.

The solution offers good integration potential.

While Palo Alto is the leading firewall worldwide, it's so pricey. Other products like Checkpoint still do the job, and yet it's way cheaper than Palo Alto. The solution is extremely expensive. You can integrate it with other Palo Alto products, however, it ends up being too much.

Palo Alto prefers the VM version. However, for the VM level, often we have a migration from one host, VM host, to another host, and then the network jobs. And they're not fully redundant. With VM, the purpose is easy migration from one host to another one. That's the purpose of VM in play, however, if you want to have high availability or redundancy, you have to purchase two licenses - one on one host, another one on another host - and it costs a lot of money to do that. 

Technical support could be better.

I've used the solution for about five to seven years at this point.

It is a stable solution. With the cloud, you don't even touch the physical box at all. However, for the traditional network guests, I like my stuff to be reliable. That's why I don't like the VM migrating from one host to another host. That's why I'm in the process of converting the VM back to the physical box using redundancy. That will be the network solution. I want my network available 24/7. 

The solution is quite scalable.

We have about 150 people using the product currently.

Support is awesome. However, it can depend. When you get a ticket and you take it to the proper person, they can give you a solution really quick, and the support is really good. That said, sometimes, if you are not lucky, you create a ticket and a salesperson or specialist runs it to a different person. Sometimes it takes a long time. Sometimes they make you do a lot of the work and ask you to send them reports or check certain things. If they run the ticket to the proper person, I can resolve the problem in 10 minutes. If they run my ticket to some other person, maybe it takes a whole day or two and I don't have time to play around.

I'd rate it as average, at maybe a five out of ten in terms of the service level you get in general.

I previously used Juniper. I have experience with Cisco ASA as well. 

Currently, I use Microsoft Defender for my endpoint protection.

I switched when Palo Alto turned into the top firewall management solution. I did do research.

From the GRI management port, it's easier than Cisco ASA. 

The solution is very easy to set up. I've been working for many years on this. I know the whole process is easy to start with some simple logarithmic management It's easy to manage. 

The deployment is fast. It usually takes about a day. On the first day, you get the management running on the UI. On the second day you need to get the traffic going through the certificate, and to do some proper security policies. That's all. Yes. To do it in one day is just a one-man job.

I manage the solution myself and maintain it every two months or so. Of course, if there are any issues in between these maintenance events, I also work on them.

I did the implementation myself, however, five or seven years ago, I used a consultant and learned from him. I've likely done 20 or so firewalls myself at this point.

The issue with Palo Alto is that the price is almost double other products such as Checkpoint, or Fortinet. There's no reason you price yourself to be double other brands.

I just did a call for renewing my license. I requested two redundancy units. The price, which was all-inclusive with WiFi, a VPN solution, a global VPN, et cetera - all of them bundled together, for two units, over three years, was $81,000.

You can buy the hardware only and each box is not even $10,000. It's only $8,000 for the unit itself. However, then you are charged a three-year license at $81,000.

I'm just a customer.

I'm using the latest version of the solution.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.