Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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.

It is a management tool, and we use it to manage many devices at many locations. 

Templates and the possibility to apply a configuration to many devices at the same time are the most valuable features. We are able to create templates, and we don't need to go to each firewall to make changes. We can make changes in Panorama, and it automatically applies those changes to all those firewalls on which we want to apply the changes. It provides centralized management.

It communicates with remote devices, and sometimes, there is a little bit of delay during its communication with remote devices. There should be real-time communication or updates from the manager to devices.

In Panorama and Palo Alto firewalls, I would like to have a traffic simulator. They have packet capture for troubleshooting, but it would help if they can provide a traffic simulator so that we can simulate the traffic and see the route the traffic is taking and get feedback about whether it is blocked or it is able to pass.

I have been using this solution for maybe a year and a half.

I don't have big deployments. It works and is stable for what I have, and I don't have concerns.

I don't have experience in big deployments. In terms of its users, our network engineers have access to it. We have less than 10 people.

I don't have any experience with their tech support.

Its main competitor is Cisco with the next-generation firewalls and FTD. They are managed by FMC, which is a little bit similar to Panorama and firewalls. There are some similarities, but there are also some different approaches. In general, they both are using the same standards. One major difference is that Palo Alto uses security zones, but Cisco doesn't have this feature, which makes Palo Alto better.

It is not so straightforward, but it is also not complex. It is acceptable.

I would advise others to completely evaluate the requirements and build properly with hierarchical templates. This will make it more scalable and manageable in the future.

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.

We use it only for management. It's dependent on the customer environment. If they have more than one Palo Alto product, they prefer to buy Panorama because you can manage all Palo Alto products.

Suppose you have four or five firewalls for different environments related to the same customer. You can buy one license for Panorama and handle the management of all these firewalls simultaneously from one console.

We usually use the same use cases related to it because we're working with only government parastatals. We have certain criteria that we cannot move out of, and we should be in the same line as they provide for us.

I like its flexibility.

It could be easier to manage. In the future, it should be much easier because it's not very easy to manage. So in the next release, I think it should be much easier to manage, especially in the first configuration. It could also be more stable.

I used Palo Alto Networks Panorama for about a year and a half.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is fairly stable. Sometimes it takes a long time. Sometimes there is a delay in pushing the policy or configuration between the Panorama and the host.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable.

Palo Alto technical support is good, and they answer in really good time.

It's easy to install, but the configuration is not simple as the installation. Nevertheless, the deployment should take less than ten minutes.

We're an integrator, and we implement this solution.

Sometimes the company prefers to give a license to test the product in our environment before we go to the customer. But the customer should buy his own license, and that's the system here. The system is different between one country and another. Some countries say that the IT solutions provider should provide the license.

I lived in Turkey before, and over there, the customer buys the license and provides this license to the IT solutions provider. However, here in Qatar, the customer asks the IT solutions provider to do everything.

I would recommend this product to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven.

We have five to six firewalls, and we manage those firewalls with Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

One valuable feature is centralized management. We are able to manage it centrally for two to three remote offices, our head office and our data centers. So, it is very simple to manage.

The second valuable feature is that it stores a lot of the logs. When we require it, we can get the dump, and we can get the logs.

Palo Alto must provide a cloud-based feature or solution.

The initial setup requires expertise and can be a bit complex.

I would like to see the management be a bit more simple than it is currently.

I've been using this solution for around two and a half years.

I find Panorama to be a stable solution.

As for scalability, I tried to add on a Prisma Access plugin, and it was able to take the load.

There are five firewalls behind Panorama, and there are 200-300 users behind these five firewalls.

We have made calls to and raised issues with technical support, and they have been responsive.

The initial setup is a bit complex and requires expertise. Configuring a firewall is a bit easier than configuring multiple firewalls at a time through Panorama. To create device groups and templates, and to manage everything is a bit difficult the first time.

We have a yearly license. The cost is not that high and not that cheap either.

If you have multiple firewalls, like around 10 to 15 firewalls, then you should go for Palo Alto Networks Panorama. If you do not have more than 10 firewalls, I would not recommend that you go with it.

If I were to rate it on a scale from one to ten, I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama at seven.

We have firewalls in different locations and we want to manage them centrally to see all the information available. The best way to do this is by using this solution, we are able to monitor, manage, and have visibility of the networks.

The most valuable aspect of this solution is the ability to manage our devices centrally. Additionally, we can monitor the workforce connections, receive reports, and use the backup feature.

There are times when we are backing up a device centrally, we do not get a full backup. We are able to do a full backup of all the devices but when we attempt to backup a single device, it only does the backup of a few presets and not the full configuration.

In the future, they could improve by providing better management of the devices, such as bandwidth. 

I have been using the solution within the last 12 months.

The stability is good.

The solution is scalable. You are able to go through this solution and download from the internet upgrades to push them to the certain devices that need it.

The technical support is good. I receive a resolution from the technical support whenever I have dealt with them.

We sometimes have difficulty with the deployment configuration.

The solution requires a license and the price is higher than competitors. It would be better for them to decrease the price or maximize the discount.

I would recommend this solution to others if you have multiple sites and you want to manage them centrally.

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

We are using this solution to manage our two perimeter devices. We have two firewall setups; one perimeter and one internal firewall and we have two different Panorama for managing both set of firewall.

The most valuable features of this solution are that its look & feel is exactly same as normal firewall, easy to explorer all of its features, also it has the Log Collector mode. This mode allows us to store our logs for two years in the solution itself. 

There is a need to improve the upgrade process. When we are upgrading the solution we are facing some issues with Elasticsearch services. Every time we upgrade it takes a long time to become stable.

In an upcoming release, I recommend having policy segmentation because that will help Panorama. There is no policy segmentation as you would find in Check Point. 

I have been using this solution for two years.

The stability needs some improvement during some operations.

The solution is scalable. We have the solution on a VM and we only need to increase our storage to scale. One of my clients is a bank and they have approximately 2,000 employees using the solution.

We are using this solution on a daily basis. The operation team is using it for log search, deploying policies, and a few other operations. I do not think we need a second instance of this solution running because security features are working with the firewall and not on Panorama.

The technical support is very good. Whenever we face an issue the technical support team helps a lot.

In the initial setup in our case, we are using the single setup firewall with panorama. the usual templates, stacks, and devices group is works good with multiple firewalls. But with single firewall setup This whole process has become very complicated and very confusing. There should be some provision for a single setup firewall to avoid the template stacks and templates. 

The solution is priced well and there is a license for this solution that we pay annually for. 

I previously evaluated Check Point and Fortinet. Check Point security management server is altogether a different GUI & cannot work without SMS and Fortinet is also different because FortiAnalyzer is only used for log collection.

This solution features I would recommend over Fortinet and Check Point because it has the same look as a firewall and there is no more difference between firewall and Panorama. We can deploy policy & other configurations without panorama as well. 

I would advise those wanting to implement this solution that is pretty straightforward, and Palo Alto has written very detailed documentation on their website. If you go through that it is very easy to deploy. You will not run into any issues if you follow the documentation.

I recommend this solution to others.

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

It is a central firewall management solution.

Centralized firewall management and update management are the most valuable features.

They can improve its cloud integration. 

I have been using this solution for more than five years.

It is very stable.

We haven't scaled it. Currently, five to ten people are using it on a daily basis.

Their technical support is excellent.

Its initial setup is very simple.

It was done internally. It does require maintenance, and the administrators are responsible for this.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of ten.

The ability to manage a large number of firewalls from a single point is most valuable.

Its scalability can be improved. It is too expensive to scale it in the way Palo Alto wants us to scale. Scalability is one of the main reasons why our customer is looking for alternatives. It is too expensive to scale.

Its redundancy also requires improvement, but it seems that in the latest version, redundancy is improved, and you can have more than two devices in an HA pair. So, they are heading in that direction.

It would be good if they combine their dynamic list functionality in a much better way with Panorama and include it as out-of-the-box functionality. Palo Alto supports the dynamic list functionality for some basic threats, but there is a lot of scope for improvement.

I have been using this solution for almost nine years.

It is 100% stable.

It is too expensive to scale, which is one of the main reasons why our customer is looking for alternatives.

Its initial setup is straightforward. If you have a basic knowledge of Palo Alto Networks, you will be able to spin it up.

I would recommend this solution. It is the best in the class.

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