We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and WatchGuard Firebox based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product is easy to use and is stable. The SV1 functionality is a benefit."
"The dashboard I have found the most valuable in Fortinet FortiGate."
"Valuable features include the Web Application Firewall, and it even has DLP (data leak prevention)."
"The pricing is great and very reasonable."
"The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"It has improved our organization with control data."
"Fortinet FortiGate is user-friendly and affordable."
"Offers good security and filtering."
"The solution is very stable."
"Prisma Access is the most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls."
"The basic configuration will only take 15 minutes to set up"
"I found Palo Alto NG firewalls more intuitive compared to other products. I value the capability to identify a cloud solution."
"The strengths of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are application visibility and application awareness. Their strong point is identifying applications for traffic. So all of the policies that are configured are related to the application and not to a port."
"The solution is scalable"
"Good functionality and features."
"The configuration is quite simple to understand."
"The solution has many security features. We have an intrusion provision system and filtering and block filtering."
"The client is easy to use and stable"
"The ports that I have assigned appear to be unattainable to outside 'mal-actors,' unless they have an address registered on the internet that this thing is expecting. That's a layer of security."
"HostWatch makes it so I can see, in real-time, activity in the event that there is something weird happening on the network. This simplifies my job."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The solution simplifies my business. Normally, for administration, we are using NetApp System Manager on Window since it's easy to create new policies. In a short amount of time, you can create new policies based on new requirements. For example, in the last few months, many requirements changed due to the coronavirus, adding the use of new services, like Office 365, and eLearning tools, like Zoom."
"The firewall aspect and the branch office VPNs are the most valuable features... We don't have any issues with it. We don't have to spend a lot of time maintaining it."
"The most valuable feature for small and medium businesses is the support for various protocol proxies."
"There are problems with the custom reporting of the unique traffic. The data is there, but it is too difficult for us to extract."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having better visibility. Palo Alto has better visibility."
"I would like to see improvements made to the dashboard and UI, as well as to the reporting."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"There are just some services that aren't available. For example, the Ethernet or point-to-point protocols. They could add these services to their product offering - especially services for ISPs."
"The reporting in Fortinet FortiGate could improve. Customers are having to purchase additional reporting components. When I have used the Sophos solution it is a complete solution, in Fortinet FortiGate you have to use additional tools to have the features needed."
"There can be more security in hybrid implementations. When a customer has a hybrid environment where some parts are in the cloud, we need a consistent security solution for such scenarios."
"Pricing for it is a bit high. It could be cheaper."
"Personally, I feel that their dashboards for reporting and things like that need some improvement."
"The solution is very expensive. There are cheaper options on the market."
"The whole performance takes a long time. It takes a long time to configure."
"I would like to see better third-party orchestration so that it is easier for the team to work with different products."
"I would like to see better integration with IoT technologies."
"When there was change from IPv4 to IPv6, some of the firewalls still didn't support IPv6. In North America, we have seen most customers are using IPv6, as they are getting the IPv6 IPs from their ISPs. Sometimes, when they go through the firewall, it denies the traffic."
"Sometimes some of the applications the customer has do not respond as they normally should."
"Based on the features that I have seen so far, I do not see any room for improvement, but they can improve their CLI documentation. I haven't really seen much when it comes to CLI documentation."
"I would like to have a little more control over access points and the ability to see the bandwidth that is passing through a specific access point. We are not able to see that. We can see what traffic is passing through the Firebox itself, but we can't identify if it is coming from a particular access point or not."
"It would be wonderful if the WatchGuard team develops nice products for threat intelligence."
"The software base, the management piece that goes onto a server, is not as user-friendly as I would like. There are three different pieces that you have to manage, so it's a little bit convoluted, in my opinion."
"The scalability of the solution needs improvement."
"The only downside is that it is missing an API, that you can use to easily collect information from it."
"The UI and web view aren't nice."
"If they could make the traffic monitoring easier that would be great. I don't use it that frequently, but I would like to see some improvements in the ease of use of that component, so it makes more sense. I know it's a technical component so there's going to be some difficulty trying to make that easier."
"The software in it could be a bit more friendly for an amateur user. I look at it and don't understand what half the stuff is. Looking at the interface, it is all mumbo-jumbo to me. It's not a simple interface. You have to be an IT guy to understand it. It is not for your average person to use, then walk away from it. It is much more entailed."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 162 reviews while WatchGuard Firebox is ranked 13th in Firewalls with 79 reviews. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6, while WatchGuard Firebox is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WatchGuard Firebox writes "Offers a streamlined deployment, intuitive interface and robust security features". Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas WatchGuard Firebox is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, OPNsense and SonicWall TZ. See our Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. WatchGuard Firebox report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.