Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

We primarily use the solution in order to protect our perimeter. It's used for security purposes.

The product is set up so that we can handle more than one firewall. We can handle a bunch all in one application. It makes it simpler that everything is more centralized.

The firewall rules and policies are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

The interface and dashboard are quite good. 

We haven't had any issues with the management of the solution.

The product offers good technical support and documentation.

We haven't had issues with scalability or performance. It's been very stable over the years.

I don't recall the initial setup giving us any troubles.

I haven't come across any issues with the product. Overall, it's been very positive.

I don't recall missing any features. It's a fairly complete solution.

The product could offer more integration with other solutions.

I've been dealing with the solution for five or six years at this point. It's been a while. It's not new to our company.

The solution is quite stable. There are no glitches or bugs. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is reliable.

We are currently in a hardware upgrade and I hope that it's very seamless. It is scalable; we checked the hardware and I do not expect to upgrade again due to the current hardware performance being really good.

We've connected with technical support a few times. It was normal, much like our experience with other vendors. They are average and provide the support we require. We are satisfied so far with their level of attention.

I also have experience with various firewalls, such as Checkpoint, Palo Alto, and Cisco.

The initial setup was not handled by myself. It was handled by a colleague. However, I do not recall them struggling with the implementation. The setup seemed to be quite straightforward. It's not overly complex, from what I witnessed.

My colleague handled the implementation.

I can't directly speak to the price of the solution. It's not an aspect of the solution I handle.

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with the organization.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's been very useful for our organization and we've been quite happy with its capabilities.

It is a next-generation firewall, and therefore you can use it for a lot of requirements, and lots of solutions. I would highly recommend it.

The solution is used for VPN, and Firewall protection.

I find the portal, and the filter function to be the most valuable features. I found it easy to learn how to pull information from the logs.

I would like to see more real-world testing before updates and patches are released in the live environment. The last VPN update that was released caused a problem that kicked users out. I would also like to see better documentation. The current documentation is not detailed enough.

I have been using the solution for a month and our organization has been using the solution for about four years.

The solution for the most part appears to be stable. I haven't had any major concerns.

The implementation was through a vendor.

Although I don't have direct knowledge of the setup cost I believe it is mid-range. There is also an additional cost for the VPN service.

I would rate the solution a six out of ten.

I was not part of the initial setup so I don't know how straightforward it was. 

The solution is used across six businesses for both the service and the workstations.

We have used this solution to design LLD, HLD and PLB queues as well as development queues. Once approved, we implement and configure drone and drone protections. We have also used this solution for App-IDs.

This solution is user-friendly. It is centrally managed and provides role optimization, without the need for additional tools. We also make use of URL filtering and App-IDs. 

We have experienced a few bugs which the team at Palo Alto don't have solutions for. 

In the next release, it would be good to have features which increase the processing power in clusters.

This is a stable solution.

This is a scalable solution. 

The technical team are knowledgeable and have helped us solve some complex issues. However, there are some team members who are not very knowledgable and some issues take longer than a week to resolve. 

Neutral

The initial setup is easy and takes less than three hours. The setup time does depend on migration activity and how much configuration needs to be done, as that takes additional time. 

I have worked with FortiGate and Palo Alto. Both are quite similar but I have experienced more bugs in FortiGate compared to Palo Alto. Both products have the same functionality, although FortiGate does have more features. 

Palo Alto has rule optimizers, reporting and many other capabilities built in and so other products (such as FortiGate or Check Point) do not need to be used with this solution. This is what makes Pal Alto affordable compared to other solutions. 
Compared to other firewalls, this is the most reliable solution. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

This product is part of our overall security solution.

The most valuable feature is the Threat Intelligence.

It is easy to use.

I would like to have better analytics.

The network traffic analysis (NTA) is something that you can add on to get more insight from the traffic passing through the firewall, and it should be included.

We have been working with Panorama for at least five to six years.

Palo Alto Panorama is a stable product.

We did not have any challenges with respect to scalability.

Our team has managed properly so we have not often needed to contact technical support. I would say that they are okay, as we have not had any problems with them.

We are currently using several different firewalls. There is Check Point, Fortinet, Juniper, and Palo Alto. Check Point was the first one that we used.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took a couple of weeks to deploy.

Our in-house team handled the deployment and is responsible for maintenance.

Palo Alto is expensive and there are many cheaper firewalls, but they do not work as well.

My advice to anybody who is looking at this solution is that it is easy and straightforward to use, although more difficult than some to deploy. It is expensive but if you can afford it, then it's worth it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is jack monitoring and file management. 

The solution improves my management abilities by simplifying the implementation of policies for all my branches. 

What I like most about this solution is that it allows me to push multiple policies on multiple followers at the same time. For instance, I can work on a policy and it gets submitted on more than one file. It is a good feature for me to have, because I have many branches, so it gives me the ability to implement more than one policy, or to implement one policy on multiple files. I like the ease of management for the policies in the all files.

I have had some leakage issues before, but it was solved. I would, however like to see better integration with other products.

To be honest, the stability is really good, but perhaps it is from the Amazon Web Services (AWS). I haven't tried it on VMware yet, because I use Tekfy as a platform. The implementation on AWS made my life very easy. There was a template for this program on AWS, so I only needed to install my license and then it implemented Panorama.

The minimum license is for 25 users, so up until now, I didn't need to scale. We currently have five or six users who work on the program daily, and most of them are in the security division. One person is using Panorama to check for the logs from the files, and then we have a security consultant. We have one or two staff responsible for maintenance. 

We used three people for deployment, as we were already using some of them for the branches, creating a VPN between AWS and to create firewalls to ensure that everything was working fast. 

The technical support is good, but it can be better. I will rate the customer service eight out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward because we used a consultant of the company to do the installment. They did a good job with it.

My implementation strategy was to install Palo Alto Networks Panorama first, and then implement and integrate it with all my other files. It took us about two weeks to deploy the program.

We looked at FireMon, but FireMon was more expensive, and the main requirement for FireMon is to manage more than one file from different vendors. We didn't need it.

I will recommend this solution to others because it is a good solution, but only if you are using multiple files and not only two or three files. You should have at least five files for this solution to be right for you. I rate this product an eight out of ten. Easier implementation with other solutions will increase my rating.

In the future, I would like to see additional features being able to install firewalls using remote sites and the ability to do initial configuration using Panorama. I would like this initial configuration to be copied on USP and have the firewalls configured to connect to the Panorama. 

I would, therefore, like to see easier configuration and implementation in the next version. 

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.

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 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.