Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

Finding a solution for easy management, where the company is protected in a matter where an unwanted software is blocked.

Functional and very futureproof but a bit hard to manage, and the worst thing is that it takes almost 20 mins to boot up, and to commit a config takes half that time.

• GlobalProtect
• URL filtering
• Threat prevention. 

These features are great, but they have drawbacks and could be a bit better, flexible, and easy to manage since it takes the admin time to get them right. 

• Boot time
• Easy UI for the non-network specialists
• Commit time
• Virtualization
• Credit to Palo Alto knowledgebase. 

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.

I deploy this solution for our clients. Firewalls can be used when you want to achieve SD-WAN connectivity. In a client's VPN or site-to-site VPN, it can be used to secure networks locally. If you have an extender or server room, you can secure your IT infrastructure for your servers. The solution can be installed on edge to protect your internal network. If you have services running on AWS or Google Cloud, or Alibaba Cloud, it can be deployed there. Some clients have a hybrid kind of infrastructure. I'm a service delivery engineer and network security lead and we are customers of Palo Alto. 

It's a flexible solution and integrates well with apps and other security tools like SIEM, web applications. They can share their data orchestration. It's robust and fast in terms of architecture and data processing, there aren't any bottlenecks.  

The interface could be improved visually and simplified. It sometimes feels like some of the features are hidden and not easy to find. 

This is a very stable solution. 

In terms of technical support, I've noticed that as long as you have an enterprise license the support is good. 

For a beginner, the initial setup might be somewhat complex because the interface is a bit different, so there's a learning curve. It's not that steep, and once you get it, it's okay. In terms of other solutions, the Palo Alto deployment takes longer than Fortinet, for example, because of the intricacy of the user interface. In a medium size organization, deployment can take three to four days. 

I would recommend this solution. The uptake is mostly with medium and large enterprise, it's strong there. For small to medium size businesses, the preference is usually Fortinet or Sophos. It's really about what suits the client. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

I primarily use this solution for the core banking network. It's for core security. So it's to protect against intrusion, to protect against any kind of cyber attack that can happen to it. It protects our core infrastructure.

Mostly it's improved the security side. There was no security before, and we were looking for a solution that could give us the exact capacity to do all the configurations that we need, while also providing a high level of security. 

The app ID is very good.

The support needs improvement. Also, better reporting of errors would be good.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is not so good. Because if you want to upgrade, you have to change the service completely. We have about 2000 users.

It's a long wait time, although sometimes it's been quicker to get them. Occasionally, the type of answers provided are not so great.

We used to use Check Point, but we switched. It's because we found Palo Alto is better. Check Point is much slower, more expensive.

The initial setup was straightforward for us. We are technology oriented, so for us, it was straightforward. No complexities. For deployment, we needed about 5 people. Maintenance is only three people. Three engineers are looking after the books.

We did the implementation ourselves.

I would advise anyone to go ahead and understand exactly what they need. It's not because Palo Alto's cost is a little less. Depending on use, it's expensive. So they should understand the requirements first, before going with Palo Alto.

We previously had Check Point and eventually compared it with the Palo Alto screening, which proved that Palo Alto was the best. It was not a difficult choice.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. Generating reports is not so easy. I think with support, for everyone, and for all the bank company workers, they can do that a bit better. Then maybe I would rate them higher.

I use the solution for firewalls.

I find the configuration the most valuable.

The support in our country can be slow sometimes. It's a slow website. It could also use better customer support.

The solution's stability is normal.

My impression of the scalability is that it is easy.

I contacted technical support a lot of times. Most of the time, they were pretty good, but sometimes technical support couldn't resolve the issue, and they don't know what to do.

The setup of the firewalls has medium difficulty. On one configuration it was easy, and on another one it was hard. Sometimes it's normal to configure sometimes it's more complex. You only need one person, maybe two, for deployment at a company.

I did the implementation myself.

At our company, we sell the solution for another vendor, and they sell to another vendor. So our pricing is more expensive than other vendors. 

I didn't look at any other vendors.

The functionality is good and so are the features. In terms of implementing the solution, I wish it was better. I would rate the solution 8 out of 10, mostly due to the technical issues I've experienced.

Firewall.

We standardized on the product and got rid of several other types of firewalls from different vendors.

The firewall has a lot of sub-capabilities underneath it.

I would like integration with Evident.io and RedLock.

The data loss prevention (DLP) capabilities need to be beefed up.

The stability is good.

It is very scalable.

We have had that many problems, so we haven't had to engage with their tech support.

I was not pleased with my previous solutions.

We switched to Palo Alto for better manageability and overall features.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

We deployed in-house.

Annually, the licensing costs are too much.

I would certainly encourage someone to look into this solution.

It protects from any unwanted traffic or any kind of attack toward your LAN. It just minimizes the risk. It does not completely eradicate the risk.

We have the latest version of this solution.

Application control, IPS, and sandboxing towards the cloud are the most valuable features. It is a very user-friendly product with a very easy-to-use interface.

Its stability can be better. Their technical response from the support side can also be better.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

It is stable, but its stability can be better.

If you got the product for 100 users and the company has grown to 500 people, this product will not be scalable. You will need another hardware that has more resources.

Their technical support is very good, but their technical response can be better. You might face some difficulties due to COVID, but they have been very good most of the time. It also depends on the region from where you are calling.

It is very much straightforward. It is a friendly product, but one should have basic knowledge of networking and security.

The deployment duration and the number of people required vary based on the requirements. A security product doesn't work in a way where you just install it, and it starts functioning. You need to keep improvising and updating it. It is an ongoing process for all security products.

You pay based on the kind of license you require, but comparatively, it is not very expensive.

I would recommend this solution to others. If you have internet, you should definitely have a firewall in your network. When you're exposed to the internet, you're exposed to risks. You definitely need a next-generation firewall in corporate networks.

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

We've put it in hospitals and very large private and government businesses. We have its latest version.

URL filtering and WildFire features are most valuable. It is very user-friendly. 

It is a very solid product, and it definitely works.

In the cloud, the HA could be a lot better. 

Its price could also be better. It is very expensive.

I have been using this solution for about seven years.

It is very reliable.

Its scalability is very good. We have hundreds of customers.

Their support is very good.

It was pretty straightforward.

It is very expensive. You pay for a year.

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