Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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.

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.