Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

I am using the solution for protecting the network organization from threats.

The best features of this solution are URL filtering and traffic visibility.

The areas that need to improve are network protection and user identification.

In the next release of the solution the VPN could improve because it is not as good as competitors.

I have been using this solution within the past 12 months.

This solution is stable and reliable.

We have 10 employees using this solution in my organization. We are in the beginning phases of testing and will increase usage if the test phase results are favorable.

The technical support is responsive.

The initial setup was easy.

We are on an annual license for this solution. I am happy with the price and when comparing it to other solutions it is priced competitively.

I have evaluated Sophos firewalls and I found Palo Alto solutions better because of the protection and web filters.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a seven out of ten.

We use this solution to protect our network.

This solution has helped our organization by protecting the perimeter of our network from both internal and external threats.

There are plenty of features available in this solution, such as attack blocker and spam blocker. Additionally, it is very robust and in-depth.

The solution is not straightforward.

I have been using this solution for approximately eight years.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is good. We have approximately 500 users using this solution in my company.

The initial setup was complex. The full installation, including customize to meet our requirements, took approximately one month.

We used the help from an integrator team for the implementation.

The technical support is satisfactory.

The price of the solution is on the higher side compared to competitors.

We are currently looking for a better-priced solution.

This is a very good solution but it is very expensive.

I rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a six out of ten.

We are using it for data center protection, intrasystem security, endpoints protection, load balancing, and DHCP.

The App-ID, Content-ID, User-ID, and encryption and decryption are valuable features.

They can improve the handling and management of User-ID. They should also improve its price. Their technical support can also be improved.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is stable and reliable.

We went from 4 devices to 16 devices, and it was not a big problem. Currently, we don't have any plans to increase its usage. Our network won't grow over the next two years. It will stay as it is.

Their technical support is sometimes lousy, but sometimes, it is okay. Their technical support can be improved.

Its initial setup is not too complex for an environment like this.

Its price should be improved.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of the Palo Alto firewall is to control incoming and outgoing traffic as the firewall is deployed at the perimeter. Also we have used a VPN in that device so remote users can access the internal networks. We are partners with Palo Alto and I'm from the implementation team and work as a technology consultant. 

The GUI is very simple in Palo Alto and I like that. We rarely have any issues but when we do, the stability of the solution is very good. All the options they offer; creating objects, configuring VPN, it's all pretty simple and straightforward. The solution is continuously in use in our company. 

The support could definitely be improved. Whenever I call the tech engineers, there's a long wait time. For an additional feature, I'd like to see the segmentation in policy. Check Point has a good feature for segmenting policies that I'd like to see implemented in Palo Alto. It would make things easier for the operation team to create & identify particular policies, or to place a policy in that segment. Finally, there are limitions to the hardware in the number of objects & policy we can create is limited which is not the case with Check Point or FortiGate.

The stability is good in the Palo Alto firewall.

The Palo Alto firewall cannot increase the RAM and we can't do that either. We're unable to increase any physical boundaries of the firewall. That is one of the cons of Palo Alto. Our organization is pretty large and I am currently working on Palo Alto for three clients. I have a total of about 10 clients who are using the Palo Alto firewall. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We just had to do the initial configuration of hardware, deploy our Panorama VM and integrate with hardware firewall, and it is pretty simple. It's also quite self-explanatory. 

We have five-year contracts with Palo Alto. I know the solution is on the expensive side but I'm not involved in licensing and don't have the numbers. 

I have also worked on Check Point and FortiGate, the hardware firewall. The Check Point Firewall has three-tier architecture where one security gateway & management server is there & smart dashboard is deployed on Windows. The application is required to control the Gateways. On other hand In Palo Alto, we just take GUI access of the firewall or Panorama to deploy any security policies and the architecture is very simple. As mentioned, the downside of Palo Alto is that there is a limitation to the number of objects that can be created. 

I would 100% recommend this solution and they have provided pretty good documentation on their website, so it's easy for operations as well.

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We use this solution as our central firewall, but not as a perimeter firewall. For our perimeter, we use another solution. 

Our organization consists of roughly 2,000 to 3,000 employees. 

Identifying applications is very easy with this solution.

I don't like the reporting. The reports it provides are not helpful. They should include more executive summaries and other important information — they're too technical.

I have been using this solution for three years. 

The stability is excellent. 

The technical support is good, but not excellent. Their responses can be quite vague and unhelpful at times. 

We used to use Checkpoint. We stopped using it because the price was too high. 

Considering our limited amount of experience, the initial setup was easy. Deployment took one month. 

A local reseller team of roughly three to five people implemented it for us — it was a great experience. 

We evaluated Palo Alto, Checkpoint, Fortinet, and Cisco Firepower. Overall, it came down to the price — that's why we went with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

This solution is very particular; it's only suited to specific companies — it's a commercial opportunity. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. 

We have two 3000 Series Firewalls placed in our primary location. We have two sites and the secondary site uses the primary site for internet access. All traffic to the secondary location goes through a VPN tunnel. I'm a network administrator. 

The value of this solution for me is the protection from a single packet and ease of making security rules. It also doesn't require a special dedicated network team, I'm able to do it myself. It's a time saver for me and now in this pandemic period, users have access from home.  

I'd like to see some changes to the licensing policies and, on the technical side, improvement in scalability. It's not so easy to scale out your security capabilities. With the situation in business today, everybody lacks money and if you have to increase your resources and to constantly pay more for that, it becomes a problem. 

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

It's been 10 years and I don't remember any outages because of a hardware failure or a logical error in configuration. We had problems with servers or switches initially but it works like a charm now. 

Scalability is the main disadvantage of Palo Alto. They call themselves a firewall with router capabilities but it's not a router and it requires a good bandwidth in VPN which could become a problem because you have to scale to really big hardware. We can solve the issue with other solutions, but for me the idea is to have less devices in your environment.
It's all about the hardware.  

The support is quite good. A couple of months ago, I sent an email with an issue and we got an answer in 15-20 minutes. In my experience, Palo Alto support is one of the best, maybe the best support available.

We previously used Juniper which is currently called Net Screen. I also looked at Sonic Wall. We carried out a proof of concept five years ago and they had to decide whether to go with Palo Alto or another vendor. 

For me, the initial setup is very easy. To get the device running with some capabilities but maybe not all security rules takes about an hour and it's the same for any upgrades. We have around 900 users and one admin person from our organization who deals with any issues. 

Palo Alto is an expensive solution, we currently have a three year contract. I'm not sure what our terms are. People always want cheaper, nobody wants to pay more. In our region, I think if Palo Alto was cheaper, more companies would buy the solution. 

I would absolutely recommend this product, it's expensive but I trust it. There is always room for improvement such as with scalability capabilities in Palo Alto. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this is an issue. It's possible that next time we will try virtualized firewalls, it may be a little cheaper for us. We would consider switching to something else but it would be a big move and quite complicated. Moving to a different vendor is a whole other story.

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution as security - as a next-generation firewall.

The application control portion of the solution is its most valuable aspect.

The malware protection on offer is excellent.

The initial setup is very easy.

We found the scalability to be quite good.

The stability is excellent.

Technical support is great.

The interface is very user-friendly.

Either the application or the vendor needs to provide a more updated list of internet applications.

The price of the solution is very high.

We've been dealing with the solution for about three or so years at this point. It's been a while now.

The solution has been extremely stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable.

We tend to work with enterprise-level organizations.

The scalability is quite good. If a company needs to scale, it can do so with ease.

We found the technical support to be quite good. They are helpful, knowledgeable, and responsive. We have no complaints. We are very satisfied with the service they provide to us.

We also work with Fortinet.

I'd likely recommend Palo Alto over Fortinet as I find Palo Alto to be more user-friendly. The performance is also very good.

We found the initial setup to be very simple and straightforward. It was not overly complex or difficult. A company shouldn't have any trouble implementing the solution.

The deployment is also very quick. It only takes about ten to 15 minutes or so.

The cost, overall, is pretty expensive.

We are a Palo Alto partner. We are a systems integrator.

I'd recommend the solution. If a company has the budget, I would suggest the product to them. If a customer has a more limited budget, however, I would highly recommend Fortinet as an option.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We are working on creating security policies on the firewall. We have just put GlobalProtect VPN in our company. We also have Prisma Access.

We have on-prem and hybrid cloud deployments.

It has strengthened our security policies and made our environment more secure. It has provided us more security features. Due to the rules that we have created on Palo Alto Firewall, all the malicious things have been stopped from coming into our environment.

The App-ID feature is the coolest feature because you don't need to open a new port. Apps are directly linked to the port. It provides one of the best ways to lock down the additional port switch.

Its software updates can be improved. It sometimes becomes very slow with the software updates for different features.

It should have an External Dynamic List of data. The malicious IP is not frequently getting updated in Palo Alto, and this should be done.

I have been using this solution for six years.

Its stability is good.

Its scalability is also good.

We were using Cisco ASA previously. Palo Alto has strengthened our security policies. It has also made our environment more secure than Cisco ASA.

Its initial setup is straightforward.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall an eight out of ten. It has been working very well.

We primarily use the solution for traditional firewalling. We use it for VPN connections -  especially now that people are doing work from home. This solution is our VPN gateway.

The solution has a lot more features than other firewall solutions, including Cisco, which we also use. It's very rich. There's so much there and we don't use a lot of it, although it is nice to have the option.

The solution itself is very user-friendly and quite easy to use.

You just need a web browser to manage it, unlike Cisco, which requires another management system.

The solution is quite stable.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The scalability is limited and depends on the size of the firewall that you will buy. 

The solution is very expensive. There are cheaper options on the market.

I've been using the solution for three years at this point. It's been a while. I have some good experience with it at this point.

The solution has proven itself to be quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable in terms of performance.

The solution can only scale according to the sizing that a company has purchased. It depends on the size of the firewall that you will buy. For example, right now, we have this firewall with 24, which means our scalability is limited to 24.

They do have higher-end models for companies that have planned for bigger deployments.

At this point, we have about 200 users and three admins.

We're happy to use it for our perimeter firewall and so we are not planning to change it anytime soon.

Technical support is okay. We have local vendor support. Whenever we have an issue, we contact them and they help us open a ticket with Palo Alto.

We use both Palo Alto and Cisco as our firewalls. We use them both at the same time.

The initial setup has the same amount of difficulty as, for example, a Cisco setup. Regardless of if it's Cisco or Palo Alto, it will all the same level of effort. However, the use cases will be different from one another.

That said, the whole process is pretty straightforward.

We have three admins on our team that can handle setup and maintenance responsibilities. 

The price of the solution is quite high, especially if you compare it to Cisco or Juniper.

The solution is subscription-based. Users can pay monthly or yearly. We pay on a yearly basis.

We are Palo Alto customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We work with the 3000-series and tend to use the latest version of the product.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations if their budget supported buying it. Cost-wise, they are on the high side. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I'd rate the solution at an eight. We've largely been satisfied with its capabilities. 

My primary use cases for this solution have been the firewall, file analysis, and remote-access VPN. 

The graphical interface is easy to troubleshoot because it has a drill-down sequence. It is easy to monitor traffic. 

In Mexico, Palo Alto's discounts are significantly lower than Cisco's. They are also more expensive – about 15% or 20% – than Cisco, but their platforms are very similar.

Their tech support is not as available in Mexico as I would like it to be.