Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

Basically, it is for protection and security. We are using it to make sure that our network is as secure as possible. We are able to evaluate each stack in each pocket and take certain actions as needed when we look into some of the content of the payload. 

We have on-prem deployments, and we also have SaaS-based services.

Mechanically, all firewalls work in a similar fashion, but what makes Palo Alto different is that it also has some of the threat hunt capabilities. It is a little bit better than other vendors.

As things are evolving, we want to make sure that Palo Alto is able to keep up with what is going on outside. They should continue to do more intelligence-related enhancements and integrate with some of the other security tools. We want to have a more intelligent toolset down the road.

We implemented this solution last year.

We currently have 25,000 users. Its usage won't increase a lot, but IT is changing very rapidly, and it would depend on the security model towards which we are moving. 

Palo Alto provides pretty good support.

It is straightforward. The deployment duration varies because there are different modules and components, but it doesn't mean that we have to complete everything to make it work. For the core piece of it, it would probably take a couple of months to install, configure, and test.

We have a vendor to help us. We have two or three people for its deployment.

It has a yearly subscription.

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

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. 

It is our edge appliance. We use it for our edge security, and we also use it for our VPN termination.

We're using an old version of this solution. At this moment, I'm looking at migrating away from Palo Alto.

The ease of use and the ease of configuration of our policies are the most valuable features.

Palo Alto could do better with integrating the Palo Alto Next-Gen Firewall with SD-WAN.

The biggest issue with Palo Alto is that they are expensive. They are very expensive for what they offer. They should improve their pricing.

I have been using this solution for six or seven years.

We have about a thousand users.

We have third-party support.

I used Cisco ASA.

Its installation was pretty straightforward. There were no problems there.

Deployment duration is difficult to tell because there is a whole world of planning and other things. It probably took a couple of days. You are, of course, always tweaking these things.

I haven't installed it here, but where I was before, we had two people doing it. I and a colleague did it ourselves.

It is expensive.

There are multiple firewalls out there. I am moving away from them because they are expensive, and they don't do what I want to do with them. I have plans of getting FortiGate instead.

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

We primarily use the product for web browsing and in order to protect some sites that we are publishing to the web internet.

The solution is very helpful in controlling spam.

The product offers very good web content control and various aspects of security.

The stability of the product has been good over the years.

The initial setup is very easy. Compared to Cisco or other solutions, Palo Alto is very easy to implement and administer. They are both very easy.

I can't recall a feature that was missing. It's a pretty complete solution.

The cost of the device is very high.

To buy license support is very slow. For renewing devices and products, it's slow in terms of contacting and activating upgraded devices.

I've been using the solution for four years at this point. It's been a while. We've been using it over the last 12 months as well.

The stability is excellent. It's reliable. We don't deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Overall, it's been very good in terms of performance.

We have not proven the scalability yet. We're planning to extend our office within the next year or six months to eight months. We are buying some appliances for the process of extending our office.

Currently, around 1,000 people use this solution.

We've never been in touch with technical support. Having never dealt with them, I wouldn't be able to speak to how they are in terms of services.

We also use Barracuda and Cisco for certain aspects of security.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's quite easy to implement.

The deployment takes about one week, or maybe a bit less, depending on the requirements. That includes both implementing and training.

Currently, two people are required for deployment and maintenance of the product

We implement the solution with our network team. We implement the solution ourselves. We don't need the help of integrators or consultants.

The pricing is quite high on Palo Alto.

On the lower end, it's likely to cost $15,000 for renovation and support.

We evaluated Cisco, Juniper, and Dell among other solutions before ultimately choosing this solution. Cisco can be complex in terms of device management compared to other options, for example. Cisco can be cheaper than Palo Alto, but that is not always the case.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. We use a physical appliance.

We're using three different models, for the most part.

My company is an outsourcing company that deploys software and testing.

The solution is very user-friendly and easy to manage and administrate. For that reason, I would rate the product at a nine out of ten.

We use it for LAN users, internet access, and more. The NG Firewall has many functions like user control, access control for servers, natural controls based on applications, schedules, ports, RTs, and IPS functionality with antivirus or security functionality. We also use it to control internet access, traffic shaping for bandwidth control, and fraud prevention.

I like all the functions and features.

I think automation and machine learning can be improved to make bulk configurations simpler, easier, and faster. Scalability can also be better.

I've been working with NG Firewalls for six years.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a stable solution.

I don't think Palo Alto and Fortinet firewalls are scalable. Only Cisco is scalable. For clustering, Cisco activity models like the 4000 model are better. For example, if the firewall is undersized due to expansion, you can cluster and add more appliances to the system.

I think Palo Alto has good support. Technical support helped me solve most of my issues very quickly. 

The initial setup depends on the client's infrastructure and the project's scope. 

If it's migration, Palo Alto has a great tool called the Expedition tool. It helps to migrate any firewall to the Palo Alto firewall. This process takes about a day, and it's very simple.

If it's a fresh installation, it depends on the number of policies you need to apply and the number of metrics. You can do it using the command line. You can do it easily and quickly, but it depends on how much the customers prepare. Sometimes the customer has no information to provide, and you struggle to get this information. Sometimes this process can take two to five days or take weeks. 

We implement and maintain Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for our customers.

Paul Alto is the most expensive solution in this category. The subscriptions and support are also expensive, but everything is included in the hardware, including the subscriptions.

If a customer is price-sensitive, I will go for Fortinet without a second thought. If customers are willing to invest in their data centers, I might go with Palo Alto and Cisco.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a ten.

The most valuable features of this solution are all of the services it provides. 

The application layer to the hardware Layer is good, as are all layers it offers.

It's a very comprehensive solution.

The features should be built into the system. For example, it generates many logs with a lot of information that can be converted into security and business information and shown to the user. This is a time-consuming job.

I would like to see it provide us with intelligent information from the data that it captures, within the same cost.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It's a very stable product, so far.

It's very scalable. We have 300 users in our company.

Technical support is very good.

We have worked with various firewalls such as Check Point, Sophos, Cisco, and some unknown product names as well.

There are several things to consider before recommending a solution. It depends on the business requirements, the budget, and the complexity of the security needs.

I believe that Palo Alto is the best one, then Check Point and Sophos. Those are my three preferences.

Palo Alto and Check Point would be rated an eight out of ten and the others would be a seven out of ten.

The initial setup is complex, but it can be done.

The rollout takes a couple of weeks but you have to keep improving it every day.

Part of the setup was completed by me, with some help externally.

We have a subcontractor for maintenance.

This is an expensive product, as are the others of this type.

Know your business requirements, the features, the ease of use, and know what type of budget you have. These are the types of requirements to know before you use this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution can be used in the data center it can be used as perimeter firewalls and gateways as well. It can be used anywhere. From the systems side, the data center side, or I typically recommend that it be deployed in a VM, as it may be able to see the internet traffic and specifically it would basically look into the details of a virtualized environment as well.

It's a next-generation firewall and it's pretty stable. You don't have to worry about if you restart it for some maintenance. It will just come back. Basically, it would come back in a straightforward manner. There are no stability issues.

The one thing that I like about Palo Alto is it's throughput is pretty straightforward. It supports bandwidth and offers throughput for the firewall.  The throughput basically decreases.

Palo Alto actually provides two throughput values. One is for firewall throughput and other is with all features. Whether you use one or all features, its throughput will be the same.

It's performance is better than other firewalls. That is due to the fact that it is based on SPD architecture, not FX. It basically provides you with the SB3 technology, a single path parallel processing. What other brands do is they have multiple engines, like an application engine and IPS engine and other even outside management engines. This isn't like that.

With other solutions, the traffic basically passes from those firewalls one after the other engine. In Palo Alto networks, the traffic basically passes simultaneously on all the engines. It basically improves the throughput and performance of the firewall. There's no reconfiguration required.

Palo Alto has all the features that any firewall should have. Other firewalls should actually copy Palo Alto so that they can provide better stability, performance, and protection - at levels that are at least at Palo-Alto's.

This isn't necessarily an issue with the product per se, however, sometimes basically there are some features, depending on the customer environment, do not work as well. Sometimes some of the applications the customer has do not respond as they normally should. Palo Alto support needs to understand the customer requirements and details so that they can resolve customer queries more effectively.

I've been using the solution for the past six years at this point.

The solution offers very good stability. I don't have issues with bugs or glitches. It's reliable.

We have a variety of customers ad they all have a different amount of users. Some have 50 users. Some have 100 users. Some have 1,000 users as well. It varies quite a bit. In that sense, it scales to meet the customer's needs.

I've dealt with technical support in the past. Sometimes it is good and sometimes it's not as good. It depends on the complexity of the deployment. Overall, however, I would say that I have been satisfied with the level of service provided.

There are multiple products from different vendors, and I basically deploy different firewalls from different vendors for the customers based on their needs. The solutions I work with include Cisco, Fortinet, and WatchGuard. There are a few others as well.

The initial setup isn't too complex. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment time basically depends on the deployment model. If it's a VMware model, it's pretty straightforward and you can basically deploy it in half an hour to one hour.

If it is in another deployment model, for example, if it's in Layer 3, it depends on the subnet environment, how many subnets they have, or how the traffic is routing from one end to the other end, etc. 

I'm involved in system integration, so I basically deploy and manage the solution for the other customers.

I'm an integrator. I work with many clients. My clients use both the cloud and on-premises deployment models.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations.

Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is for the perimeter connection of our clients in the network. Our client brings their services to their clients, and they have the option to connect to a webpage. With Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls they can safely provide a username and password to their clients.

It is mainly on-premise, because the majority of the clients at this point want that kind of option. But many of them are already asking for the cloud option, like Prisma, for example.

It has improved our clients' organizations because previously the clients did not have the option to fully connect. In this solution, they have the opportunity to add services to their web page and book clients.

The feature that I have found most valuable is the connection. It's very easy for the clients to connect to their information. They use an SSL connection by BPM.

We work very closely with the vendors here and at this point they use external support.

Maybe they could add some tools and more competing services, like servers, but that would increase the cost of the solution.

My company has been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for almost one year. It is new for us. We have more experience with Cisco and Fortinet.

In my company, I am responsible for the development of the proposal that we give to the client. We develop the spectrum and the pricing. We make presentations to the customer to explain the solution and answer questions about it.

The scalability is very strong. The vendor provides has high availability.

Our clients are medium sized businesses.

Palo Alto is not a cheap solution. It is expensive. But because of its technology it pays itself back. In each case we work with the vendor to obtain a major discount for their business. I give that discount to our customer, who benefit from the services that we can bring them.

This is our first dealing with Palo Alto. With other vendors we have more experience, like with Cisco and Fortinet.

Palo Alto's documentation and manuals are very complete. It's very easy to obtain the information that way.

The client still uses Cisco, Fortinet, and Checkpoint. Palo Alto has very good administration tools which is not the case with the others. You can't compare all vendors. Also, the granularity of the information that they can obtain from the firewalls is better.

The initial setup depends. In the case of one client, for example, they have a very complex connection of networks, which is architectural. It is integrated and we need to pick it out and include all the rules that they have and to put in the firewalls which they want to buy in the next month. That kind of job is not easy for us, not just regarding Palo Alto but for other vendors, too.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine.

I would recommend this product to others.

In terms of what advice I would give to future customers looking into implementing Palo Alto Firewalls, I would tell them that they have a good system operator in the firewalls and that it provides many tools that they can use to protect their networks. You don't find that in the other vendors.