Palo Alto Networks VM-Series Reviews

We are a solution provider and the Palo Alto VM-Series is one of the products that we implement for our customers. Our customers use this virtualized next-generation firewall as part of their security solution.

The VM series has an advantage over the physical version because we are able to change the sources that the machine has, such as the amount of available RAM. With a physical machine, you cannot the resources without adding something to the machine.

The management can be done from a single console window.

The implementation should be simplified.

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

This solution is stable.

The VM-Series is a scalable product.

The support is good.

The implementation involves setting up policies.

We deploy this product with our in-house team.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The VM-Series firewall is part of our overall security solution.

The most valuable features are the User ID, URL filtering, and application filtering. These features have helped us a lot. 

The user interface could use some improvement.

I would like to see SD-WAN features added in the future.

We have been using this product for three years.

Stability-wise, this product is great.

This is a scalable solution.

I have been in contact with technical support and find that they are great.

We have the VM-Series as well as the physical appliance.

The initial setup is straightforward. It doesn't take too long to deploy, although every company their own set of requirements. For example, the level of compliance varies between companies.

When I joined the company, the VM-Series firewall was already in-place.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are a service provider and I work on both shared firewall and dedicated firewall solutions for our customers. The primary focus is firewall threat protection. The rest of the features are used, albeit not too much. At this moment, it is not an overly complicated or advanced solution. 

What I like about the VM-Series is that you can launch them in a very short time. You don't have to wait for the hardware to route for them to be staged and installed. From that perspective, it's easy to launch and it's good because it is more scalable.

The product is quite responsive.

The one issue that I didn't like is that the SNMP integration with interfaces didn't record the interface counters. It seems that you really need to upgrade to the very latest version, whereas the physical one has worked for ages now. I think that it narrowly affects the Azure deployment because I remember that we were using the VMware solution before, and we didn't have such issues.

I think that the most important point for Palo Alto is to be as consistent and compatible as possible. It should be compliant such that all of the features are consistently available between the physical and virtualized deployments.

It is not always easy to integrate Palo Alto into the network management system. This is significant because you want to compare what your network management system is giving you to what Palo Alto is giving you. Perhaps in the GUI, they can allow for being able to monitor the interface traffic statistics.

The other things are pretty much great with traffic calls and sessions, but just being able to look at it on an interface physical level, would either avoid using the monitoring integration by SNMP or would create a reference, a baseline check. This would allow you to see whether your network monitoring system or tool is actually giving you correct traffic figures. You need traffic figures for being able to recognize trends and plan the capacity.

I have been using the VM-Series for almost five years, since 2016.

We have not had trouble with bugs or glitches.

The scalability is good. We haven't experienced any constraint limitations for scaling.

I have been in contact with technical support and I find them to be quite good.

In my previous work, I dealt with both physical and virtual systems. However, currently, I am only working on virtual solutions.

I have found the initial setup to be okay. But, then again, I have been using Palo Alto firewalls since 2014, so it's hard for me to say if it is difficult to become familiar with or not.

Our in-house team is responsible for maintenance.  We usually have three people who are able to work on it and do so from time to time, depending on the requirement.

I don't have too many complaints as I compare the virtualized version to the physical one. Perhaps I haven't noticed any issues because we use the proper hardware, and it was strong enough to carry the workload and remain quite responsive.

My advice for anybody who is implementing the VM-Series is to be very well prepared and test it in advance. Make sure to scope it and understand the performance implications. Also, be sure that the core features are understood and are supported on the VM. Then, test it before implementation or migration.

This is a very good product but I can't rate it as perfect because there are these little issues that are pretty common and you expect things to work, but they don't because of some incompatibilities. I think there was also some limitation on how you can do the high availability on virtualized power, in Azure in particular. If these common features were consistently working on both physical and virtual deployments then I would probably rate it a ten out of ten.

As it is now, I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We mostly use it for threat protection. Currently, I'm working on virtual solutions, and it is deployed on the cloud. We have three people who work with this solution.

I have previously worked on the shared firewall as well as dedicated firewall solutions, where we deployed it on-premises as well as on the cloud. 

The most valuable feature is that you can launch it in a very short time. You don't have to wait for the hardware to arrive and get it staged and installed. From that perspective, it is easy to launch. It is also scalable.

It would be good if the common features work consistently in physical and virtual environments. There was an integration issue in the virtual deployment where it didn't report the interface counters, and we had to upgrade to the latest version, whereas the same thing has been working in the physical deployment for ages now. It seems that it was because of Azure. We were using VMware before, and we didn't have any such issues. We do see such small issues where we expect things to work, but they don't because of some incompatibilities. 

There also seems to be a limitation on how to do high availability in a virtualized environment. All features should be consistently available in physical and virtual environments. 

It is not always easy to integrate Palo Alto in the network management system. We would like to be able to compare two network management systems. They can maybe allow monitoring an interface through the GUI to create a reference or do a baseline check about whether your network monitoring system is actually giving you the correct traffic figures. You need traffic figures to be able to recognize the trends and plan the capacity.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series since 2016. 

I didn't see any issues with its stability. 

It is scalable.

I found them quite good.

I found the initial setup okay. I have been using firewalls since 2014, so it is hard for me to say whether it is easy to install or not.

I would advise getting very well prepared by defining the scope and testing it in advance. Make sure that you understand the performance implications and that the core features are supported on the VM, and they are tested before the implementation or migration.

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

We use it for all next-gen firewall features such as ACLS, application monitoring, security, virtual networking, etc.

The feature that I have found the most useful is that it meets all our requirements technically. 

Its web interface is a bit outdated, and it needs to be updated. 

They can also improve the NAT functionality. We have had issues with the NAT setup.

I have been using this solution for the last five years. 

It has good stability. We haven't had any issues, and it has never been down. 

It is scalable. It has handled the network very well with our growth in the last five years. 

I haven't directly contacted them, but based on what I have heard from our network team, they are pretty quick at getting back to us. 

It was complex. We used a lot of professional service hours. 

We had an in-house team as well as a consultant. 

I would definitely recommend this solution. It comes under the top industry leaders and is comparable to other top products in this category. 

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

We primarily use the solution for IT. I am from the Palo Alto Partner end, so I am not using it deliberately. I usually deploy to clients in various industries, including the payment gateway industry. 

In Palo Alto the most important feature is the App-ID. It's the biggest selling point in my opinion.

Another important application feature is the Content-ID.

The solution offers great templates.

Overall, the solution has a lot of great features on offer.

Even when the solution locks away a virus, there seems to be a delay for four or five minutes. It should be as little as one. Right now, it's such a long delay. It can be frustrating for clients and I need to answer a lot of questions surrounding that.

The solution needs to have more easily searchable details or documentation about it online, so it's easier to Google if you have queries.

The solution requires more use cases.

I've been on this Firewall for the last two years.

The stability is very good. There aren't bugs, glitches, or crashes. It's very reliable.

Although I haven't personally tried to scale the solution, my understanding is that it's easy to do so. It's convenient for enterprises. It's my understanding it would scale especially well for enterprises.

I've had to reach out to technical support many times. Sometimes, I find that it can take a while to reach support, or for them to get back to us. This is especially true on weekends and holidays. Other than that, it's been pretty good. We're pretty satisfied with the level of support we get.

I only have experience with Palo Alto; I don't know much about other VM firewall solutions.

The initial setup is not complex. It's quite straightforward. The deployment process is great. It only takes about five to ten minutes or so.

I handle the maintenance and troubleshoot any issues that arise. 

I mostly figured out the deployment myself and used Google to assist when I had questions.

I don't have any dealings with the accounting side of the solution. That's handled by someone else. I'm not sure what the cost is or if we pay monthly or yearly.

We're partners with Palo Alto. We're using the latest version of the solution.

We have a VM-Series via Palo Alto and K2K and the hardware Series.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Palo Alto VM Series is a firewall that makes up part of our security solution, handing IPS, IDS, and other security measures.

The most valuable features are web control and IPS/IDS.

The work from home features, VPN and SSL VPN, are useful and part of the GlobalProtect functionality.

I would like to have automatic daily reporting, such as how many users have connected via SSL VPN. As it is now, we have to manually look at the logs, which is tedious. There are no ready-made reports on that level and the information is not easily available.

I really need more advanced features that support the correlation of log files.

I have years of experience with the Palo Alto VM Series.

This firewall is quite stable and we haven't faced any kinds of issues.

It is scalable but I cannot really comment on how much because we have not taken it to that level. We have between 450 and 500 users.

I am satisfied with the technical support. However, they regularly provide training on the system so we have rarely opened a support case. 

The initial setup is straightforward and easy. 

The deployment will take a couple of hours at the max and will depend on the configuration that you are looking for. Palo Alto will give you a report that recommends policies that are based on industry standards. For example, if you have approved Telnet access then you will be warned because it is not recommended and you should be using SSH instead. They will give you lots of recommendations to warn that the configuration does not follow the standard practice and if allowed to remain then it will explain what vulnerabilities you might face in the future. This kind of report is really valuable.

I highly recommend this service compared to other vendors. It has everything included in one platform including IPS, IDS, and antivirus. By using the Palo Alto initial configuration, it is going to block many threats from day one and it is pretty easy to do. You don't have to have an in-house technical team that is capable of doing that. You don't require that kind of knowledge, which is important because many people don't understand IDS, IPS, or file blocking. They need experience. With Palo Alto, a normal person with perhaps a year of technical experience will understand how to configure the firewall and generate reports.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The Palo Alto VM-Series is a firewall that is part of our security solution.

With Palo Alto, it feels like you're using the Rolls-Royce of firewalls.

All of the next-generation features are valuable and set Palo Alto apart from other firewalls.

The application filtering, or AppiID, and URL filtering are good.

The interface with Panorama makes it very easy to use.

The command-line interface is something that some people struggle with and I think that they should have an option to go straight to the GUI.

The interface for Panorama has not changed greatly and could be updated.

I have been using Palo Alto VM-Series for more than six years.

It is very easy to scale. All you have to do is get access to the VM base and then spin it off into another virtual environment or send it into the cloud.  This means that you now have a data center through Palo Alto.

They have a new product called Prisma that allows you to create links between remote users working from different areas and use that to connect to the clouds in this infrastructure. It also allows you to get connectivity to that but not using a backhaul. Rather, you connect straight from wherever you are.

In the places where we have deployed this solution, they have a couple of thousand users.

The technical support is great. This is a brand and they have to protect it, so they make sure that the users get what they need.

I have experience with Check Point and Cisco, who both started improving their management interface after Panorama.

I would say that the initial setup is easy. I have been an IT professional for more than 20 years and can say that this is an example of a product where you simply have to read the manual. If you jump straight into it then you will start struggling.

During the initial setup you begin with the CLI, but you enter a command and it brings you to the GUI. Once you are in the GUI, you will see words on the tabs. All of these things are there if you look carefully.

The price of this solution is very high for some parts of Africa, which makes it a challenge. If it were lowered then it would be more popular.

I have been using Palo Alto since version 6.0, and I am currently evaluating the latest one, version 9.1.

My advice to anybody who is considering this solution is to try the trial version first. It is good for 30 days and it can actually be used because it is the full product. You can test all of the scenarios and try the next-generation features. You can use features like the VPN GlobalProtect and actually see it work. The same with URL filtering and antivirus.

Overall, this is a great next-generation firewall.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.