Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

We're customer facing; each customer uses it for a different purpose. Some use NG Firewalls for IPS capability, some for application capabilities, these kinds of things.

The accessibility, antivirus, and stability features are the most valuable. It's so stable, the customer can use the decryption features without impacting performance.

Most customers ask about the choice of features. It's limited. It's not arranged well for users. Also, customers don't want to buy extra things for extra capabilities. I would like to implement individual profiles for each user. Capability, in general, is limited.

It's a very stable solution.

I am the customer's technical support. If a customer has issues, they would call me.

The initial setup was basic. It was very simple. The basic configuration will only take 15 minutes. Anyone can set it up. If a person has worked with a firewall before, they can do it themselves. You only need one person for deployment.

Licensing is on a three year basis. Customers prefer one to three years. Licencing is pretty expensive. Check Point is cheaper than Palo Alto. There's also an international license. If a customer wants to control different things, they will need an extra license. 

I've helped customers using Fortinet and Check Point. They are compromised. Their firewall is not stable. But for some features, for example, encryption, they want to use this feature, but the firewall feature isn't great. With Palo Alto, there isn't any problem, you can open any feature - IPS feature, data encryption feature - there isn't an issue.

Implementation is simple, the product is stable, but I advise if people get the firewall I strongly recommend the use of the API features. They may not be accustomed to using a next-generation firewall. If they want to use NG Firewalls, they need to use and implement the API features. They need to create uses based on the application.

My understanding is Version 9 will introduce some logic features.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

I am a reseller of Palo Alto Networks.

The solution is user-friendly. It's secure and easy to understand your network visibility, control the network, and prevent attacks.

The pricing could be improved. They need to work on the setup over the firewall, VLAN, and PPPoE.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

I seldom call technical support because it's easy to understand and configure the solution.

It could be less expensive.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

If you want to have a secure network, use Palo Alto. 

We were mainly using it because we had two ISP links, so it was a kind of gateway device. Whenever a link went down, the firewall used to automatically switch over to the secondary link so that the internet connectivity is kind of highly available.

It worked fine normally.

The VPN connectors should be better. We had some challenges in terms of the VPN with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall, and that's one of the main reasons why we moved to Sophos.

Its load handling can also be improved. There were challenges when traffic was high. During peak business hours, it did not function very well. There was a lot of slowness, and the users used to complain, especially when they were connecting from outside. We even reported this to the support team.

Their support should also be improved. Technical support was a bit of a concern while using this solution. We didn't get very good support from the Palo Alto team.

I have been using this solution for almost two to three years.

It was fine normally, but during peak business hours, it used to have challenges. We faced this issue at least two to three times a month.

It is not very scalable. We had around 100 users. We had around ten people in our IT team.

Support was a bit of a concern while using this solution. The support that we received was not too great, which caused a lot of issues. They were not very customer friendly.

This was the first firewall that we used. 

I didn't do the installation.

I would not recommend this solution. I am sure they will come up with better models to overcome some of the challenges that we faced, but I would definitely not recommend this particular model.

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

I am currently testing Palo Alto and preparing for an exam.

The Global Protect Feature has allowed our organization to support our remote workforce. 

I have found it to be reliable and very easy to use. I haven't really encountered many problems with it because its documentation is clear and readily available on their website.

They need to provide documentation for CLI, as most of the commands, we get from Community Forums.

I have been doing research on Palo Alto for the past nine months.

It is stable.

Highly scalable as the HA deployment allows you to pair up to eight devices at once. 

I haven't had a chance to contact them.

Palo Alto is my first solution.

Initial setup is easy and subsequent changes have been easy to implement as well. 

In-house expertise. 

Sophos XG.

I would say go for it because it seems to be stable and very reliable. I've spoken to some specialists who vouch for Palo Alto. They say they've been using it in their environment, and it hasn't let them down so far.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The solution is typically used for antivirus and antimalware purposes, to help protect an organization against attacks.

The solution offers many different capabilities.

It's one of the best products I've worked with. It's typically a market leader on Gartner. It's a very respected brand.

The solution offers very good security, especially in relation to antivirus activities.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The product is extremely reliable.

The pricing of the solution is quite high. It's one of the most expensive firewall solutions on the market.

Clients are typically looking for a solution that's more aggressive in the market.

For example, with Fortinet, they have an SD-WAN that really has many capabilities. For example, it can inject a GSL SIM card along with the MPLS connection. It connects the system within one product. Palo Alto doesn't offer this. This is one area that will need to improve. In Indonesia, the market is growing strategically. Palo Alto has this one product, however, with the limitation of the GSM sim card they are getting left behind. 

I started using the solution around 2012 or 2013. It may have been eight years or so. Sometimes I am doing a POC or implementing the solution, so it has been on and off.

While the solution itself is okay in terms of stability, there could be issues if the hardware is affected. We have hardware that gets affected by humidity, for example, which can end up affecting a wide range of infrastructure. If the environment is good, the solution will be okay. If we talking about Palo Alto's series starting from the 3,000 to 5,000 or 7,000, Palo Alto has a really stable product.

We set up this solution for companies of all sizes, from small to large enterprises. One of our clients is a telecom, which is quite sizable. They have the most complex configuration. The solution, however, is able to work for any company, no matter what the size. In that sense, it's a scalable option.

That said, the NG firewall is not a typical product that we can scale up on a whim. If we want to scale up in this product, we need to buy a higher series. We have to replace it. If we want to scale out this product, we can do a roll out in another location. Therefore, you can expand it out, however, you do need to change the sizing, which means getting a size or two up.

I haven't contacted technical support recently. The last time I spoke to the tech support team was five years ago or maybe as an Operation Engineer three or five years ago. Generally, I found that they were really good at understanding the product. In my experience, they were really helpful. I'd say I was satisfied with their support.

I've also used Juniper, however, that may have been three or four years ago or so.

In my case, I have a lot of experience with Palo Alto and the implementation process. Therefore, I don't find it too complex. It's rather straightforward for me. However, I have a long history with the solution. I find the hierarchy of the configuration fairly easy to understand, especially if you compare it to a solution such as Juniper. Juniper is a bit more complex to set up. Whereas, Palo Alto is a bit more straightforward.

How long deployment takes can vary. It really depends on the complexity of the configuration and the environment.

If a client only buys the implementation, they will have to handle the maintenance of the product. It's a good idea to have that type of person in-house.

We find the cost of the solution to be very high. It's quite expensive, and one of the most expensive on the market.

The pricing is related to the complexity of the environment. The more complex the company's requirements, the more it will cost.

We have a partnership with Palo Alto.

I am in pre-sales and often do POCs or do some aspect of evaluating the solution for clients to help them understand the usefulness.

Overall, I really do prefer Palo Alto to other options. I'm the most comfortable with it and I understand it the best out of other solutions such as Juniper or Fortinet.

I'd suggest organizations consider the solution. Yes, it is quite expensive. However, it is also very reliable and is always marked highly in Gartner due to its feature set and usability. It's easy to configure and it's very easy to add more features into your roadmap if you need to. It can easily integrate into a larger holistic security system to help keep a company safe.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We are a solution provider and this is one of the firewall solutions that we implement for our customers. We present this product to customers and also handle the onsite installation.

Our clients use it to secure their network infrastructure.

The most valuable feature is WildFire, which blocks sophisticated attacks and distinguishes it from other traditional firewall functions.

I would like to see better third-party orchestration so that it is easier for the team to work with different products. 

Improvements should be made in the Cortex module.

I worked with this next-generation firewall for about four months as I rotated between departments.

We have had no complaints about stability.

Scalability has not been a problem. Our customers for this firewall are large companies in industries such as banking.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

The initial setup is quite straightforward compared to other brands of firewalls. The deployment takes about one month.

Our in-house team handles the deployment and maintenance for our customers.

My advice for anybody who is considering this product is that it is a useful firewall and high-ranking compared to others.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are using this firewall for security purposes.

The most valuable features are the IPS/IDS subscriptions.

The user interface is fine.

In the future, I would like to see more OTP features.

The price of this product should be reduced.

We have been using the Palo Alto Next-Generation Firewall for more than two years.

In terms of stability, we have had a very good experience with this product. I would say that it is excellent.

Scalability has not been an issue. It's good.

The technical support from Palo Alto is good.

I was not present for the initial setup and deployment. Prior to that, I was not part of the planning.

My experience with Palo Alto is good and I definitely recommend this product. That said, there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use this product to protect our network.

The most valuable feature is the application firewall.

The GUI is user-friendly.

The way that the roles are made, specifically with how you specify the path, could be simpler.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for one year.

We used the product on a daily basis and have had no critical issues so far.

We have hundreds of users in the company and have not tried scaling it.

With regards to support, they have a lot of things to improve.

We also use Check Point as a firewall. Both have their advantages but for my part, Palo Alto is better because of the way it handles applications. Check Point is better if you are only using ports and TCP/IP.

The initial setup is of medium difficulty. It is not simple yet not complex.

We implement in-house with some assistance from the vendor. It took a few hours to deploy.

Palo Alto is more affordable than some competing products, such as Check Point.

In summary, this is a good product and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.