Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is used to manage the Palo Alto firewalls.

We are attracted to Palo Alto because it is stable. It is very simple to use.

When they bring anything to the market, it is really well done.

There could be more integrations with third parties.

I have been dealing with Palo Alto for more than ten years, and have been selling Palo Alto Networks Panorama since it was first released.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama's stability has never been an issue for me. It's fantastic.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a scalable product.

I have not contacted technical support.

We haven't had any escalation issues, which means they're doing a good job.

We are also selling SentinelOne.

From Palo Alto, we sell everything from firewalls to endpoint security.

I was not involved with the setup.

Licensing fees are paid yearly.

We are in EDR. We don't sell any products or any information for threat intelligence.

If they have Palo Alto products, and multiple sites, it's definitely something they would need.

It is difficult to give it a ten because there is always room for development. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten. 

We have a managed services offering, which we give to our clients where we can monitor the different database applications and environments on their behalf. We bundle a service between Palo Alto Panorama and Palo Alto BMCDs, as a set of security controls for them.

The telemetry visibility is really good as well as the automated workflows for creating policies. The overall solution is quite intuitive to use.

The solution could improve by having a true single pane of glass environment for unified management. At the present time, you still have to use three or four different solutions to bring everything together.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for approximately two years.

We have not had any major bugs. However, there have been unexpected restarts and a memory leak a while ago, but nothing that the vendor did not fix in a few days.

The solution is easy to scale.

We have approximately 50 people using the solution in my organization.

The support was able to help us with the issues we were having. They are very good.

The initial setup is somewhat straightforward, you most likely will need assistants.

You will need managed services or an IT professional to do the implementation.

The solution is expensive and could be cheaper.

When implementing Palo Alto Networks Panorama with solutions you might require professional services.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine 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 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.

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.