Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

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 are using this solution for IDS, IPS, and VPN services.

Also, we are using it for gateway purposes. The development team accesses the data center, and the file intrusion prevention policy.

The most valuable features are the content ID, IPs, and the URL filtering service to enable protection. 

The structure is much faster and more sophisticated than Cisco.

Their cloud support is smart.

This solution is very stable, but Cisco devices are stable at the hardware level. Palo Alto hardware is not equal to the level of the Cisco Device.

The hardware is weak.

In the next release, I would like to see faster support and the integrated system a 5G network, a next-generation firewall, and endpoint security.

I would like a collaboration system and reporting ASA policy needs to be smarter.

It's definitely a stable solution.

For LAN purposes, we have 700 plus users.

The technical support is good enough.

We are using Cisco support and they are very good. 

The Palo Alto support is faster and their support is also good.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It takes a maximum of two days to deploy.

Two or three guys are enough to deploy and maintain it.

We used vendor support for the deployment.

We plan to continue the usage of this solution in the future and I would recommend it to others. 

The product is very good, I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine out of ten.

We have multiple IPS applications, and other multiple use cases.

We are using pretty much all of the features. This is deployed in our parameter and pretty much provides for different functionalities, for all incoming traffic and outgoing traffic.

The support could be improved.

The next release could use more configuration monitoring on this one, and additional features on auditing.

The solution is generally stable. There are no issues. We have forty-thousand users.

The solution is scalable, yes. We don't plan on increasing usage.

We are being provided with decent support but some of the RCS, some of the issues can be resolved much faster.

We were using Check Point. We switched because of certain features: entire equity, ideas, application visibility, single interfacing, etc.

The initial setup was complex. We're in the process of replacing it in seventy or so locations, and setup is still ongoing, but going well. It was complex because of the multiple zones that we had to create. We had multiple interfaces so there are multiple complexities that we had to address. We don't require extra staff to maintain the solution.

We implemented through a system integrator.

We have seen a return on investment. 

I don't have data points, but some of the use cases that we have already delivered to the organization have shown that a lot of threats have been identified and has been blocked. I don't know how you can quantify that. At the same time, the effort was significantly reduced on the deployment of new routes based on this.

I think, if you compare, they're a little costly next to Cisco of Check Point, but they offer a lot of other additional features to look at. The licensing is annual, and there aren't any additional fees on top of that.

We actually did not but we were using two or three other products already, so we had a good idea of what to expect.

I'd say the blueprint of the implementation needs to be ready before you start the implementation of the product. The product is generally stable and the team provides a good presence on it, but at the end, if you're putting it in the mission-critical data center, the planning needs to be extensive.

I would rate this solution an eight and a half out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a datacenter firewall for 0 trust security model

From my experience, comparing it to other products, the granularity you can have in the application is very good. The application detection is excellent. It's certainly one of the best. 

The engine detector application is usually one of the best compared to any other firewall on the market, in my opinion.  With it, I can do a lot of rules based on the application. If you have multiple internet links, you can have an application export from one link, and an application wire from another link. You can have security on the application. The security, for example, can have different functionalities. Basically, the granularity of rules is amazing in Palo Alto.

They have a good reputation for their antivirus capabilities.

The solution offers a strong URL based system or detection for malicious URL or malicious files. 

They even have a machine learning algorithm. They do a lot of very advanced detection for files and URLs. 

Once you deploy the product, you can basically forget about it. It has high customer satisfaction because it's always just working.

The solution would benefit from having a dashboard.

From a normal IPS after attack, routine attack and threat detection attack, in other words, the standard IPS detection attack, I don't see Palo Alto as very good compared to others. The standard network IPS functionality could be better. It's there in solutions like McAfee or Tipping Point, however, I don't see it here in this solution.

We've been working with Palo Alto for about six years now.

From my experience, it's the best hardware compared to other NG firewalls from the perspective of performance stability. While the other firewalls lose 50 or 60% of performance when enabling all policies, Palo Alto loses 10 to 20% maximum, even with enabled IPS and fire detection and all. From our experience performance-wise, it's one of the best hardware solutions for firewalls. 

We haven't lost performance really, so I would describe it as very stable. There are not any issues.

Since the solution is hardware, there are some limitations in terms of scalability.

Usually, in hardware, you can't say it's scalable or not due to the fact that you have the limitations built-in related to the size of the box. The box has a maximum number that it can reach. You can add more hardware, however, the hardware itself is finite.

We usually do a POC first so we can get the figures for performance and we can put in a box that can support 20 or 30 people extra for future expansion.

In general technical support is very good. That said, usually, when we face an issue, we try to solve it ourselves internally before going to level one support. 

In general, we never have had a big issue with support. I don't have much experience with the support team to tell you if they're really good or not. Usually 80% of the cases we open, we talk with the distributor and finish the operation case directly with Palo Alto. It's more like a backend request and therefore I don't have much input that would be objective.

As resellers, we also work with Cisco and some Forcepoint solutions.

I like that in Cisco there's more security parts, like IPS, and a Demandware engine.

I like Cisco, in general, more than Palo Alto if I'm comparing the two. However, from an application perspective, our application's usability and detection and firewall control using an application, it's Palo Alto that's the best on the market. That's, of course, purely from a  firewall point of view. Even in terms of detection of the applications, it has the best system.

The deployment depends on the client's environment as well as how they are using it. For example, an internet NG firewall on the internet, it takes, on average, a week between installation, integration, and tuning. Usually we don't do all the policies because we are system integrator. We do the main policies and we teach the customer and then do a handover to the user for tuning and all the installation extras.

If it's a data center project, it takes more time and effort. It takes a month sometimes due to the fact that we'll be dealing with a lot of traffic. The application and server are usually harder to control than internet applications like Facebook and other standard applications, and easier on the internet. Then there's also internal applications, custom applications, migrating applications, finance education applications, etc., which are not always direct from the customer or directly known.

In short, the implementation isn't always straightforward. There can be quite a bit of complexity, depending on the company.

In general, I prefer hardware, and Palo Alto's is quite good. However, we have a couple of virtual deployments for cases as well.

I would definitely recommend the solution. It's one of the best firewalls on the market. I've worked with four different vendors in the past, and some of the most mature NG firewalls are Palo Alto's. It's their main business, so they are able to really focus on the tech. They spend a lot of time on R&D. They're always leading the way with new technologies. 

While Cisco has more main products, Palo Alto really does focus in on NG firewalls. That's why I always see them as a leader in the space.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

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 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. 

We use the firewall for securing the data center. We have designed it to be a two-stage firewall. We have a perimeter firewall which is not Palo Alto, and then the Palo Alto firewall which is acting as a data center firewall. We are securing our internal network, so we have created different security zones. And we assign each zone a particular task.

We have found the application control to be the most valuable feature. Also, Layer 7, because all other products are working up to the maximum capacity. But Palo Alto is benefiting us, especially in application control management. We are able to differentiate between Oracle traffic and SQL traffic.

The solution needs some management tool enhancements. It could also use more reporting tools. And if the solution could enhance the VPN capabilities, that would be good.

The solution is very stable, but I think the local providers have no sufficient products. We are looking for more support. 

The solution is very scalable. We are trying to increase usage. We are planning already to increase our internet center. We are planning to extend our users to around 1,500. Currently, we have about 700 users.

The local consultant support needs some improvement. External support is sufficient for us.

The initial setup was easy for us to implement.

We used a consultant for the deployment portion.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

The primary use for this product is for security as a firewall by a sales engineer for the guest environment.

It allowed us to evaluate traffic in the customer environment by providing detailed reporting on the traffic and applications.

The WildFire feature is one of the best features in this firewall. WildFire extends the capabilities of Palo Alto firewalls to block malware. The best feature for the reseller is Service Lifecycle Reviewer, SLR. You deploy Palo Alto Network Firewall to the customer environment and it collects data about customer environment, customer traffic. After a week, Palo Alto generates a report to review the traffic. The report tells what applications were touched and how users used these applications in the environment, as well as additional details. So for resellers, you just go to the customer, deploy the Palo Alto in the basic mode so the customer doesn't need to customize anything in their environment because Palo Alto works to meter traffic out of the box.

Of course, the reports register app ID, user ID, the space of the app IDs, the database of these app IDs and other common data. It is a great feature in the Palo Alto product.

The manufacturer can improve the product by improving the configuration. Some of the menus are difficult to navigate when trying to find particular features. It is not entirely intuitive or convenient. You might need to configure a feature in one menu and next you need to go to another tab and configure another part of the feature in another tab. It's not very user-friendly in that way. On the other hand, it's still more user-friendly than using the console. But this is certainly one feature they can improve.

It's a great firewall, really one of the best in the market. It is one of few firewalls that can claim to be better than Cisco. It functions well, is very stable, and its reputation is known in the market.

I think that the product is very customizable. If you don't need to protect a lot of assets, you can buy a small firewall at a low price for small needs, but if you need you can buy a bigger solution with more features. Scalability is very easy with Palo Alto Networks.

Actually, I have moved away from using this product because of changes in duties.

Installation is really very straightforward. You just need to plug it in and connect to the environment and that's all. Deployment time depends on the size of the environment and customer needs. Some customers just need two or three policies and that's all. But some customers need more policies designed to cover the needs of specific departments. So deployment depends on the size of your environment. If it's a small company, it's not very hard to deploy the main features of Palo Alto, it may take an hour but not more than a day. It depends on the customer needs and size of the environment.

I work as the system integrator, so I install instances of Palo Alto myself. It was the first security product that I learned to work with.