Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Palo Alto Networks Panorama vs Tufin Orchestration Suite comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Palo Alto Networks Panorama
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
3rd
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
89
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Tufin Orchestration Suite
Ranking in Firewall Security Management
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
183
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Firewall Security Management category, the mindshare of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 8.3%, down from 10.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Tufin Orchestration Suite is 22.0%, up from 20.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Firewall Security Management
 

Featured Reviews

Kim Ejby Lorentzen - PeerSpot reviewer
Unified firewall management streamlines operations across branches with prompt support services
The primary use case for this solution is the management of the entire firewall portfolio across various branches Palo Alto Networks Panorama has simplified management by providing a unified interface for firewall management and configuration. One of the key advantages of Palo Alto Networks…
MithatBulut - PeerSpot reviewer
New employees can quickly grasp the various IPs, devices, and the network's logical and physical
Tufin is primarily used to orchestrate and manage network traffic and firewall devices. It is specifically useful for implementing firewall policies and handling requests from clients that require policy updates or changes Tufin simplifies understanding network topology. New employees can quickly…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Especially for big, worldwide clients, one of the most valuable features is being able to create some rules to place on the security groups."
"The firewall rules and policies are the most valuable aspects of the solution."
"Threat prevention and traffic monitoring are the most valuable features for us."
"On the one or two occasions that I had to make use of technical support, I felt it to be pretty good."
"The telemetry visibility is really good as well as the automated workflows for creating policies. The overall solution is quite intuitive to use."
"It's a reliable solution."
"The product was great, and whenever there was a bug or issue, they released updates quickly. Additionally, their support was very good."
"The most valuable aspect of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for me is the centralized management of multiple firewalls."
"The change workflow process is flexible and customizable... If we have a firewall completed and we want to redo it, if we need to re-engineer a particular firewall and open a different destination, we can do that by creating a break-fix... That is one of its useful tools."
"I like the policy topology map, which allows us to visualize the picture of the security policy of the whole organization."
"Tufin is the only multi-vendor firewall tool that is available, and it helps to bring everything together and report on what all of the rules are."
"SecureChange makes our lives easier with automation."
"The change workflow process is very easy to customize. You can do a workflow however you want, so you can have an approval every single step. Or, you can remove approvals on certain steps, automating some steps."
"Comparing the rules and policy browser is valuable to me. It gives me the ability to pull running configs and be able to analyze them without having to go directly into the firewall."
"They have very good responses regarding integration and internalization with open tickets."
"There are a lot of benefits to using the reporting. It gives us duplicate objects, duplicate services, shadow firewall rules, and the firewall rules not needed for a given number of days or months."
 

Cons

"The pricing of the solution could be considered an area of improvement, as it is a comprehensive and feature-rich product that may include features that are not needed by some companies."
"The product could offer more integration with other solutions."
"The solution can improve by providing unique reports in relation to the function of which you choose the firewall to do."
"We have had some issues in the past because integrating a new device is not intuitive."
"The solution is extremely expensive. You can integrate it with other Palo Alto products, however, it ends up being too much."
"It is very hard to understand the platform. It is not easy and user-friendly. You need a lot of experience to use Panorama. It is very complex, and you must know exactly what to do. I would like to have a more user-friendly product. FortiManager is comparatively very easy to use. It would be good if Panorama improves in terms of user-friendliness. It is also harder to use than Palo Alto Firewalls."
"Instead of searching their knowledge base in their website, maybe they can interact with us in the user interface to explain things better."
"The pricing is quite high."
"The pricing of the solution is rather expensive."
"We would like to see more in terms of integration with other application types within the context, such as next-generation firewalls or next-generation threat devices that are out there."
"I haven't seen the cloud integration yet, and I would like to see if we could audit the cloud firewalls, like the cloud-native, Azure, and Amazon. That would be nice. You want one tool to do everything. I don't want to use another tool, or manually go and audit the cloud firewalls."
"I would like to see an improved reporting model that can be flexible for us to generate our own reports. The data's already there."
"There was some complexity during the initial setup"
"I would like to see API access into every aspect of Tufin."
"They need to offer more support to vendors, such as Cisco, Checkpoint, Fortinet, and Forcepoint."
"We had a discussion in the Customer Advisory Board yesterday around use of SecureChange. We would like to have an opportunity for an engineer to choose if you want to make or take the policy which has been suggested by the designer functionality, making it more human readable or less human readable (more or less granular). This would be huge for the customers who are using SecureChange. They said this was one of their issues with it, especially for anything that was going into a regulator's or auditor's hands. The more human readable, the better that it would be, and this would definitely be applicable to our industry. It sounds like they are working on this issue, or they took the feedback, but that would be a big one for us in being able to make the jump to SecureChange."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is high. There is a pay-per-use model."
"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."
"We have a yearly license. The cost is not that high and not that cheap either."
"The price of Panorama is expensive."
"It is very affordable when compared to more expensive firewalls."
"There is a license needed to use Palo Alto Networks Panorama. The cost is not that important, what is important is meeting all the requirements and security features."
"There is a license required to use this solution and it is paid annually."
"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."
"Our evaluation showed that Tufin's features were on par with AlgoSec, but Tufin was the better financial choice."
"Our licensing fees are more than $100,000 USD per year."
"We haven't purchased the license yet for SecureChange. We do have plans to buy it next year."
"There is a permanent license for devices, but it's not relative to a device itself. Once you purchase 10 licenses for virtual appliances or virtual context, you can put them into different virtual firewalls, but you can reuse these licenses for other devices if you don't need them for the old ones."
"Because we're quite a large company, the price wasn't too much of a factor for us."
"The price of Tufin could be lower."
"The solution is more reasonably priced than its competitors."
"Our licensing costs are three million total and then we pay for maintenance, which is an additional cost for three years."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewall Security Management solutions are best for your needs.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Retailer
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
The most valuable aspect of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for me is the centralized management of multiple firewalls.
What needs improvement with Palo Alto Networks Panorama?
The solution requires more flexibility and quicker response times. High-speed replies are crucial. Additionally, the AI module should be on-premises, not in the cloud. It should support more flexib...
What do you like most about Tufin SecureCloud?
The most valuable feature of Tufin is security auditing. We are able to check the rules and compliance of the company, for example, what is allowed or not. We are able to check the rules over diffe...
What needs improvement with Tufin SecureCloud?
The design needs improvement, particularly in recognizing target devices and target files. Additionally, there's a need for an improved network map.
What is your primary use case for Tufin SecureCloud?
My primary use case involves applying firewall policies faster from a central point. Additionally, I would like to use it to generate reports, but this hasn't occurred yet.
 

Also Known As

No data available
Tufin SecureCloud
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

University of Arkansas, JBG SMITH, Temple University, Telkom Indonesia
3M, AT&T, Blue Cross Blue Shield, BNP Parabas, ConocoPhillips, Deutsche Bank, GE, IBM, Pfizer, United States Postal Service 
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks Panorama vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.