Palo Alto Networks VM-Series Reviews

The primary use case of this solution is as a firewall for our servers.

We are running a total of 12 servers. Four of them are hardware servers and the rest are VMware servers. We have about 80 clients running Windows 10.

The most valuable feature is the Posture Assessment.

From my understanding, we used to have the Sophos firewall and a nice feature that is missing in Palo Alto is the heartbeat that monitors each endpoint. It would be helpful if Palo Alto monitored the status of every endpoint. It could be that it was not set up correctly.

In the next release, I would like to see better integration between the endpoints and the firewalls.

I have been using Palo Alto for approximately 12 months.

The stability is good.

We haven't explored the scalability yet.

We have approximately 80 Windows 10 clients, and we have approximately 85 users in our organization.

Technical support is okay. It's the same across the board, you have good techs and you have bad techs.

At times, it's a little slow in getting back to us, but nothing out of the norm.

Prior to using Palo Alto, we used a Sophos firewall.

The initial setup was complex, but we were able to work through it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We evaluated quite a few solutions before choosing Palo Alto Networks VM-Series.

I've mainly worked with the VM-Series, and a few features have been really effective for threat prevention in our networks, like McAfee training, Accountant ID, and apps ID. These features integrate well with our existing environments and tools, such as Panorama. 

 The VM-Series scalability is fast and easy to implement, improving our security posture as our Azure network grows. The only minor issue we've faced is with the apps ID configuration, which requires specific matching for application filtering. Tools like Loopback help us identify open or denied flows between two firewalls and manage the servers effectively. The Palo Alto system easily identifies rules and objects within roles, making maintenance straightforward.

No other major concerns, just the specific issue with Apps ID configuration. Otherwise, overall stability, VPN, IPSec, VRF, and flow management with the VM-Series have been very stable and reliable.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for 2 years.

I've had a positive experience with Palo Alto's support. They usually respond within a few hours, which is satisfactory

Positive

In my experience, Palo Alto and Fortinet offer similar quality and high-level security compared to other vendors like Cisco and Forcepoint. They stand out in terms of reliability and security features. Other vendors may not match their level of performance and security.

It is easy to maintain because we have various tools to manage and monitor the system. 

The pricing for Palo Alto is quite high compared to FortiGate, which is more affordable. I don't have the exact figures as my manager handles that, but from my research, Palo Alto's licensing costs are significantly higher.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series as an eight overall. My recommendation for others considering this tool would be to ensure they have the budget for it, as it can be expensive compared to alternatives like FortiGate. Also, they should be prepared to understand and document their application metrics thoroughly to implement the firewall correctly. 

We are using the solution for IDS, IPS, and security.

We need a perimeter firewall to expose anything on the internet. Our inbound and outbound traffic is controlled via Palo Alto. It has multiple features. We have Palo Alto in every location and have a central console where we control all the firewalls.

IDS, IPS, web filtering, and URL filtering are valuable features. Palo Alto is a good product. We have become a major reseller of the product. The tool is beneficial to us. The solution strengthens our IT posture.

The solution must improve Zero Trust integration and use cases. The Zero Trust solution has limitations.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The stability is good. The vendor communicates about the releases in advance. We keep updating the operating systems based on compliance and security notifications.

Scalability might be an issue for large organizations. The throughput is a challenge. Multiple segregations need to be done. More than 40 customers are using the solution. We don't face challenges in deployment and maintenance.

The support is responsive.

The setup is not complex, but it is not simple. We get everything from Microsoft Marketplace. We buy the license outside Microsoft Marketplace because it is more cost-effective. All our VMs are deployed on the cloud.

The license fee is slightly high. We must choose the right licensing.

Palo Alto’s compatibility and integrations are better than Juniper's. Zscalrer’s Zero Trust solution is better than Palo Alto’s. We recommend Palo Alto over Fortinet, Juniper, or Check Point. Palo Alto is less complicated.

Palo Alto is a straightforward solution. The solution does not have any negative impacts on our organization. Overall, I rate the product a nine or nine and a half out of ten.

We use the solution for inter-VPC traffic segmentation and inspection. I also use it for external interfaces.

The product gives us the ability to do malware detection and file inspection.

The tool provides ease of use for GUI management and deployment. The product provides more visibility into our traffic. It also helps with troubleshooting a bit of high-level next-generation platforms. The auto-update feature of App-ID is valuable. Traffic monitoring, threat monitoring, and dashboards are the most impactful for our network security.

Having visibility and alerts and being able to react to them is valuable. The integration of VM-Series with cloud services has helped us a lot to streamline our security operations. The solution has ease of use. The web interface and the traffic monitoring are more centralized.

The cost must be improved. The tool is very costly.

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

I rate the tool’s stability a nine or ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight or nine out of ten.

The technical support is really good. I rate the technical support a nine or ten out of ten.

We deploy AWS VPC as a virtual appliance, as a security VPC. The initial deployment was moderately easy. It is not complex, though.

I have used Juniper. Palo Alto’s next-generation features are better than Juniper’s.

The cloud service providers are also coming up with similar features. It can get really competitive for Palo Alto. People who want to use the solution must engage the system engineer for the deployment, vetting process, and initial implementation. Overall, I rate the product a nine to ten out of ten.

Our corporate clients use the product to secure cloud environments.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series's most valuable feature is the visibility of the environment.

The product's AIOps process needs improvement.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for two years.

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten.

We have 5000 Palo Alto Networks VM-Series users as our clients. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

I rate the initial setup process a nine. It takes a few hours to complete.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series pricing an eight out of ten.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a nine out of ten.

We use Palo Alto Networks VM-Series primarily for security purposes. It helps us with URL filtering, domain blocking, threat analysis, and detecting vulnerabilities.

We can monitor the traffic manually and detect threats. Additionally, we can block different IP addresses and URLs.

There could be dynamic DNS features similar to Fortinet in the product.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for six years.

I rate the product's stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the product's stability a seven out of ten. It could be better. We have four users for it at the moment. We plan to increase the number of devices.

We receive technical support from a local partner rather than directly from the vendor. The support team requires more training.

Positive

We have used Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) before. Compared to Palo Alto, Cisco devices are not feasible regarding hardware. They are very slow and complicated to find the granular level of results. Sometimes, even a technical expert is unable to fetch a proper report.

I rate the initial setup process an eight out of ten. It takes eight hours to complete and requires one security engineer to execute the process. The deployment involves setting up security policies. The on-premise installation is simple. However, VM installation is complicated in terms of the network interface.

It is an expensive product. I rate the pricing an eight out of ten. We purchased a three-year license for it.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series an eight out of ten.

We use this as our primary security barrier between trusted and untrusted zones.

App-ID and User-ID have repeatedly shown value in securing business critical systems.

In AWS, Palo Alto provides us a better view than flow logs for network traffic.

We have ran into issues with Palo Alto’s limitations for resolving large IP lists from DNS lookups, as well as the antivirus interfering with App-ID.

I would like to see a more thorough QA process. We have had some difficulties from bugs in releases.

I see more improvements needed from AWS than from Palo Alto on the VM-Series, namely a design centered on NGFW.

We are typically at only about eight to ten percent load.

The limit of the product is based on resources that we can obtain from AWS. We have approximately 3500 users and 200 servers leveraging the Palo Alto product.

We used BYOL, because of the cost to own.

We procure the solution through AWS Marketplace because previous experience with their physical appliances.

The pricing and licensing of this product on AWS for a three-year commitment is a great deal, if you can plan that far ahead.

It is a good product, but there is room for improvement.

We use this with Microsoft AD, N2WS, IIS, MySQL, MS SQL, and a number of proprietary applications.

• To do a lot of intrusion detection.
• Threat prevention.
• As an application firewall, to be able to securely deliver apps to the public.

It gives us the ease that we are secure. We have set up the proper things that help make our data safe. This is the biggest benefit.

It offers a single pane of glass for all the different types of installations.

The easy of use is pretty good.

I would like a way to do everything programmatically, or be able to copy the configs from different prices at different levels.

The stability is excellent. We have about 50 to 60 employees on it per day. Then, we have about 100 edge connected devices coming through it as well.

It is definitely scalable. We have about 100 users with about 200 to 300 instances on the cloud that we protect.

The technical support is really good. It is usually one phone call to get everything done if we are having an issue.

We chose to purchase Palo Alto through the AWS Marketplace because we needed an easy to use firewall and a way to protect our public applications and services.

The integration and configuration on our AWS environment was pretty simple. We did not have to ask any questions about anything on it, so it was good.

We haven't had any security issues since deploying it.

Purchasing on the AWS Marketplace was simple, effective, and easy.

The price is not bad. They have a yearly renewal fee, and the pricing is exactly where we expect it to be.

We also evaluated Fortinet, but Palo Alto is sort of the new up and coming product. There were a lot of good recommendations from other security experts.

In addition, Palo Alto is easier to configure when you are building policies on applications. 

Talk to their technical services to make sure you are getting the right size solution for what you want to do.

The product is easy use. I don't have to think twice when I am using it. I know it is doing its job. Customer support has been great.

We are using both the AWS and on-premise versions. Both versions are about the same. The interface is nice and easy to configure. I like that it seems like it is one platform to manage.