What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Palo Alto Networks Panorama?

If you go with the cloud-based deployment, it is pretty much affordable. If you go with the physical bare-metal hardware, then it is quite expensive.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is expensive but provides good value for money. For the higher end, the cost is justified. However, for the lower end, a reduction in cost could improve competitiveness.

The setup cost is too high.

In large installations, it can be expensive with hardware appliances, however, virtual Panorama is well-priced and is sold every time there's a solution.

Palo Alto Panorama might appear expensive to some enterprises, but its powerful platform justifies the cost.

Palo Alto solutions are more expensive than other products, but this often depends on an organization’s specific requirements. The level of security and features needed will influence the decision. For example, VPN access is essential for our corporate users and consultants, as company policy mandates that they connect via VPN to access the corporate network. When purchasing bulk licenses, we receive discounts, which makes the cost comparison with other solutions more favorable.

Palo Alto is costly compared to Fortinet and Sophos. However, the vendor is working on cost-effective models. They are working on the back end to make it more attractive for SMBs.

In terms of pricing, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is moderate. It is very affordable when compared to more expensive firewalls. The license is yearly, and the price typically includes the initial license and support, with subsequent years requiring only twenty percent of the initial license cost for support. It is negotiable, and the overall cost depends on your network setup and the type of firewalls you are using.

The pricing structure could use some improvement.

Palo Alto products are generally priced higher compared to their competitors. Its higher price is justified by the reliability, scalability, and extensive feature set that is offered.

Licensing costs are cheaper than Palo Alto but more than other solutions. It's quite expensive.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is expensive.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama should be reduced. We pay for the solution annually. We have acquired Palo Alto Networks Panorama for a three-year period, and we are selecting firewall options based on our specific needs, which may result in purchasing a DNS Security solution separately.

Pricing for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is always high. If you're going to sell the product, you always have to talk about the technology because it should be about the solution rather than the price, or else you'll lose potential customers.

The pricing of the product is high. They aren't very cost-effective. That said, they do provide high value to organizations.

It's a costly product. All Palo Alto products are pretty expensive. Nowadays, people are looking for security and something that offers easy management. Therefore, Palo Alto can easily charge what they want.

The pricing is considered a little bit expensive, but depending on the client, it's worth it. Again, it depends on the client, but they generally consider it a good solution. The payment structure depends on the contract that the client has with Palo Alto. I think usually the cloud solution is charged monthly.

In my experience in general, Palo Alto is very expensive. We tested Palo Alto solution for Kubernetes, and the Aqua Sec and Aqua Sec was much cheaper than Palo Alto. If Palo Alto were less expensive like them, maybe we would've chosen them over Aqua Sec.

It's not the cheapest solution. It can be quite expensive. There are other less costly options available on the market.

If I were to rate the pricing of Palo on a scale of one to five, with one being really high and five being a good, reasonable price, I would rate Palo as a three.

I couldn't comment on price as I am not really involved in the commercial side of the business. I am not aware of the licensing fees.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a more expensive solution than competitors. They should lower the price to stay competitive.

Cost-wise, it's very expensive. If you want to go with another vendor, Cisco and Fortinet are good for medium-size networks. I would rate the cost 4 out of 5.

There is a license required to use this solution and it is paid annually.

Its licensing is yearly and multi-yearly. It is not expensive.

The solution is expensive and could be cheaper.

We have another team that handles licensing. In operations, we do not have any visibility with regard to cost.

The pricing could be lower.

The issue with Palo Alto is that the price is almost double other products such as Checkpoint, or Fortinet. There's no reason you price yourself to be double other brands. I just did a call for renewing my license. I requested two redundancy units. The price, which was all-inclusive with WiFi, a VPN solution, a global VPN, et cetera - all of them bundled together, for two units, over three years, was $81,000. You can buy the hardware only and each box is not even $10,000. It's only $8,000 for the unit itself. However, then you are charged a three-year license at $81,000.

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.

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

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

The solution isn't too expensive. It's reasonable, especially if you compare it to other options on the market.

The price of Panorama is expensive.

It is not a cheap solution.

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

In terms of licensing for Panorama and Palo Alto products, we have only the DMC cost and we are billed every year. It's not overly expensive. It is comparatively okay if you look at other devices. Compared to the top three devices, pricing is okay due to the fact that you have multiple vendors who are selling firewalls and competing with each other for the same clients.

The pricing model is reasonable for this class of solutions.

The pricing is too high for us. We'd like it to be more affordable.

We pay approximately $3,000 a year in order to use the product.

If you compare the price of this solution to other management solutions, it is relatively low. You only pay for the license and there are no additional costs.

Initially, Palo Alto looks expensive, but if you dig deeper then you will find that it is very comparable, or even cheaper than other solutions. For example, if you are looking for a one-gig next-generation firewall then you will start looking at the Palo Alto 850. If you compare the price of this to Fortinet, Worksense, Forcepoint, or Sophos, then you will see that they offer three or four gig performance at half the price. However, it is not true. The reason for this is that not all of the security features are enabled. When you enable them, the performance degrades by more than ninety percent, and I have seen this happen in many different scenarios. This means that for the Palo Alto 1GB, it actually means 1GB with all of the functionality enabled. For the other vendors, you will never see their datasheet with all of the functionality enabled for a real environment with real traffic. It is based on lab traffic. Because the reality is that the performance of Palo Alto is better, it means that the price is better. When you compare models using real performance, and you do the calculation, you will see that Palo Alto is very comparable.

The licensing is not cheap. There are always hidden costs. You have support costs, or maybe you need to buy more optics on how the solution fits into the rest of your environment. It is possible some of the rest of your environment will need to change too.