Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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 case is to have a centralized console for gateways.

It has shared profiles for all gateways. If I do not have Panorama, I need to create a separate profile for each and every gateway by logging into that particular gateway, but with Panorama, I can create a shared profile and just push it down to each and every gateway connected to it.

In our version, there is no feature to transfer or upload a database of third-party vulnerabilities or signatures so that Panorama can convert them into its own database. This kind of feature might already have come in version 10.

I have been using this solution for around four years.

As of now, I am not seeing any limitation in terms of technicality, deployment, and functionality. In terms of licensing, depending on the number of gateways or serial numbers, I need to purchase the license, which is not really a limitation.

They are good. Whenever there are some issues or bugs and we are not able to trace them out, we reach out to them. They provide the required support.

It was straightforward. The gateway integration with Panorama was also a pretty straightforward configuration for us. 

We deployed it site-wise. For each HAPS, it took us around two hours to take an existing production gateway behind Panorama.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is a good solution. If any environment has multiple gateways, such as 50 or 100 gateways, it is good to have Panorama. If you have only one or two gateways of Palo Alto, you can easily manage them individually without having Panorama.

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

We used Panorama to control all the other modules from Palo Alto and to create the rules.

The threat prevention and layer seven security features were the most used and important for us. All operations are quite good in this solution.

We found a vulnerability where when we have a low flow, like 2.7K, it is not getting fired by the threat prevention. That's something important to improve on. They should have a proxy or some solution to solve the issue.

We also found some issues around decrypting the flow. When we have more flow than expected to decrypt, the performance goes down.

I have used this solution for one year. 

Its stability is fine. It supports the only point used here to decrypt the flows. When we have the right configuration, it has good stability.

We didn't scale up the solution because it requires a load balancer, which is not there. We have around 40,000 users.

They should have a local technical team. I would rate them a seven out of ten.

It wasn't easy, but it also wasn't very difficult. I would say it was medium. The deployment took around three months.

In order to have the right security level, you need to understand how decryption works or is used in Palo Alto. We had to clarify some points with them related to how decryption works.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of ten.

The solution is primarily used as a firewall reporting feature.

The dashboards are very good on Palo Alto. They offer a centralized dashboard for managers as well.

The solution needs to improve its pricing model.

Panorama needs to work on its configuration issues.

They should also focus on firewall management. Many clients have multiple firewalls, so Palo Alto should offer better management of them. They could model themselves off of AlgoSec, or maybe FireMon which are other very good firewall management tools.

The solution is stable. Palo Alto, in general, is pretty good. 

The solution is very scalable. We manage about 12 firewalls. The maximum might be 100.

Support from Palo Alto is very good. You can get it from the distributor or from Palo Alto directly.

The setup is generally straightforward. Deployment times vary, according to the client's environment and if they have multiple branches, etc. It can take anywhere from one to three days. After that, you have to fine-tune a few items, and that can take another two or three weeks. So the entire deployment process, depending on the organization, can take anywhere from three days to three weeks. Maintenence only takes one person, once again, depending on the setup of the company itself.

Most of our clients deal with the on-premises deployment solution, as cloud solutions in Egypt can occasionally be insecure.

I would advise anyone looking to implement the solution really focus on sizing before beginning the implementation.

I would rate the solution nine 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. 

It is essentially a lightweight SIEM, so it'll detect and flag any sort of vulnerabilities or attacks on your network.

I've been using the most recent version of it. In terms of deployment, it is on the cloud. It is a private cloud. It is Palo Alto's Cloud, and I think they host on AWS.

It centralized the management of our Palo Alto systems. It provided more visibility into what was going on. It sort of gave a single painted glass picture instead of 25 different pictures.

Panorama enables you to provision all your firewalls and other things as a cluster. It is quite useful for that.

It is a very simple product. It does what it is designed to do.

Its UI and usability could be improved. The way the UI looks could be improved to make it a little bit more intuitive. Other than that, it is a pretty simple product.

I have been using this solution for four or five years.

It is 100% stable.

It is highly scalable. It is pretty much infinite.

In terms of the users, the Firewall Management team and the Security team use it. There are probably only 10 people who really have access to it. They also take care of its maintenance.

It is being used extensively at the moment. Its usage will just kind of naturally grow over time. As we deploy more devices, we'll put them into Panorama for management.

Palo Alto is very good at technical support. They're a 10 out of 10. They're very good.

We used FireMon in the past. It does a little bit more, but it is not as tightly integrated as the Palo Alto solution.

It was very straightforward and very simple. I helped them roll it out and watch them spin it up. I didn't do anything configuration-wise, but I think it took us 10 minutes. It was that fast.

It was done in-house.

Its licensing is yearly and multi-yearly. It is not expensive.

Be prepared for simple. It is not complicated. You're up and running in 10 minutes, so you'll be surprised.

It is only for Palo Alto products, so you can't scale it to anything else. It does what it is designed to do, which is to manage Palo Alto firewalls and other Palo Alto equipment.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10. It is a pretty simple platform; it is just the UI that can be made a little more intuitive. That's it.

We primarily use the product for security purposes. 

Security is the most valuable aspect of this solution. We find that the security level is very high.

The user interface is very good. it's easy to navigate and very user-friendly.

The installation process is very simple.  

The product is scalable. 

The stability has been good.

We have found the technical support to be very helpful.

The configuration could be a bit better. For us, it's a critical aspect. We've noticed Cisco may be better in this regard. 

We only recently upgraded the solution within the last six months.

The stability of Palo Alto is good. We don't have issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. Users can expand it if they need to.

Technical support from Palo Alto has been very good. We are quite satisfied with the service we receive. 

The installation process is not overly complex or difficult. It's very easy and quite straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with it.

We've looked at Cisco and noted that configurations seem to be easier using that product as opposed to Palo Alto. That said, Palo Alto is okay and still manageable. 

We are just customers and end-users.

I would rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We have been quite pleased with its capabilities.

At this time, I would definitely recommend the solution to other companies and organizations. 

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.