Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

We use Palo Alto firewalls, for our perimeter security. It is our perimeter security product, which we use as our perimeter security firewall. As a firewall should, protect us and our organization at the perimeter.

It's an excellent product. It's doing its job, and we like it. The ease of use is quite nice. Everything about the reporting and everything about Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good.

Everyone, I suppose, would like the price to be improved. Price is always a good thing to change.

There is always room for improvement in anything. But I couldn't really comment on that off the top of my head.

In terms of updates, I believe everything is in order. That is not an issue for me.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for five months.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 100 percent stable. We have it running in HA status, obviously, for failover, but It's extremely stable. There are no complaints.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable.

We have a large organization. We are a retail company, with approximately 4000 users who are protected by this firewall.

I have never contacted technical support personally. We do outsource our support to another company. When there are issues, they are responsible for resolving them.

We use their product called, Cortex XDR.

We use an onboard, a custom CRM platform that we created in-house. At the moment, we do not use a commercially available one.

I have been with my current company for five months. And we were using checkpoints as our perimeter security when I first joined, and we moved to the Palo Alto Panorama platform. And it's a fantastic product; we love it. As an organization, it has been very well written.

I wasn't involved in the installation because, as I previously stated, I just started working for my current organization. 

I wasn't directly involved in the transition, but it went smoothly.

I couldn't comment on price as I am not really involved in the commercial side of the business.

I am not aware of the licensing fees.

I am aware of XSOAR, but we haven't had any dealing with it yet. We are on a journey to potentially onboard that within our environment. But, at this point, we don't have, the budget for it.

It's doing its job for us. Since we cut it out, from Checkpoint to Palo Alto, everything has improved noticeably. I recommend it.

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

My primary use of Panorama is as a management unit, including firewall and log management.

The most valuable feature is that the management unit is centralized, so you can manage different regions from one place.

An area for improvement would be the connectivity, which sometimes means logs can be slow to display.

Panorama's stability is very good.

This solution is scalable.

The technical support is very good.

The initial setup isn't very complex, it's user-friendly. The deployment time depends on your capacity planning - how many firewalls will be managed and how many logs or discs you require.

When implementing, make sure someone involved has a good technical understanding of the product and how it will work. I would rate this solution as nine 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.

I worked for a system integrator, and some of our clients  asked us to manage their firewalls. They have a large number of sites all around the world. One of them has got 25 sites, and the other one has got 13 sites. So, we deployed Panorama in our DataCenter, and we managed the gateway for our customers with Panorama.

The management and the deployment features are most valuable. We can easily deploy and manage the devices. We can do fast deployments without moving from our office and by just providing a short description to the end-user about how to install the physical device.
With Panorama you are able to manage a large number of firewall and to simplify change and incident management process .
With Panorama, firewall rules may be  managed mixing preconfigured templates (common on all/some firewalls) and more specific rules
From Panorama Dashboard you have an immediate view about the status of all the firewall deployed. 

It is quite hard to understand the platform. It is not easy and user-friendly. You need some experience and the proper technincal training  to use Panorama without risks.
It is very complex, and you must know exactly what to do.
The bigger problem is that Panorama Dashboard Logic is quite different than PanOS firewall Dashboard.
The second problem is that you dont have wizards or template .You need to build your enviroment from zero on your own incurring in possibile configuration or logic errors.

I would like to have a more user-friendly and simple to use product .
For istance FortiManager is comparatively much more easier  to use and understand.
Palo Alto Firewall too are Really easier to manage than Panorama. 

Panorama Logging and reporting features are quite good ( like PaloAlto Firewall) but not the best on the market ( for istance Checkpoint SmartEvent is still far better) 

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is quite stable based on my experience. I did not have any big issues regarding the operating system.

It is quite easy to scale with Panorama. It is more for a medium or big enterprise. To manage an environment from Panorama, you must have people with high skills. Its cost is not suitable for a couple of gateways only.

We have three levels of Palo Alto support. I also have email support in the Italian language. They provide very good support levels.

I did not install Panorama from scratch. Palo Alto Gateway is quite easy to deploy and has a decent setup.

In terms of maintenance, it doesn't require too much effort. We usually check the best practices from their website. We update the Panorama server according to the best practices and the compatibility with the gateway.

Panorama price is quite high (comparing with other Firewall management suites) 

We have used it in the past for logging and reporting, but now we have another third-party product to manage the logs.

I would recommend Panorama for managing a large-sized or medium-sized network. To manage a center with a lot of devices or cloud services, Panorama is useful. 

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of 10.

Panorama is one centralized management server through which all our devices are protected. It's a security management tool.

One of the most valuable aspects for us is the fact that all of the policy management and configuration management is able to happen right from the centralized management. This makes everything much easier.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

The solution, especially the latest versions, is very stable.

The product can scale well.

The customer support needs to be better. Sometimes we need to wait for hours before getting someone from the product team or someone from the Palo Alto customer support to get on a call if we are facing some issue. They could reduce the wait times.

I've been using Palo Alto for about a year and a half.

The solution is quite stable. The more high-end devices you take, the more stability. If you're using a little old model of firewalls, then there are issues with regard to stability. In such cases, Palo Alto would likely recommend you upgrade to the latest hardware. The latest hardware is really very stable.

The solution is quite scalable. 

Technical support is quite slow. They are not quick to respond.

The initial setup is easy. It is not that complex. There are articles and documentation, readily available on the Palo Alto website, the Palo Alto Portal, which can help you figure out how to configure the device.

Our deployment strategy for any new customer is to directly implement it in a testing phase. In a testing phase, we try to see if all the requirements that the customer wants to see if we will be facing any challenges. We want to initially try and replicate that in a lab scenario. That way, if there are any issues, we can get back to the team at Palo Alto and ask them questions. If it works, then the customer goes into production.

We don't have any dedicated person for maintaining anything. The antivirus, everything, can be directly, automatically updated on the firewall. That is not an issue. On top of that, if a particular device is getting into trouble then we get the NMS alerts for that device. In such scenarios, once we have a device failure at a particular site, we can have that device replaced. We can open a case with the vendor and once we give them a particular serial number or the VM instance, we can initiate an RML to replace that device with a new device. It takes a couple of days for that to happen.

We have another team that handles licensing. In operations, we do not have any visibility with regard to cost.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities.

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. 

We have M-100 Panorama, and we also have two from the 5000 series. They record all the traffic that goes through the two firewalls.

We are using the latest version. 

It is great that the records go back to 30 days. 

Palo Alto's user interface is much more user-friendly than other platforms.

There were a few bugs a couple of years into it. There was a big bug where it had trouble communicating with the two main boxes.

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

It once had trouble communicating with the two main boxes, but other than that, it has been pretty solid. We used their tech support to fix the issues.

It is straightforward to scale. Three people access it on a day-to-day basis.

Their tech support has always been great. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

We've been using this solution for as long as I can remember.

It is pretty straightforward. It is not very complex.

It is pretty reasonable as compared to other companies.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of 10.

We use the solution for border-leaf access.

The solution's utilization of network ports makes things as complex as possible. 

The pricing could be better. 

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for 10 years.

On the one or two occasions that I had to make use of technical support, I felt it to be pretty good. 

I cannot comment on the initial setup, as I was not involved with it. 

The pricing could be lower.

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