Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

As a reseller, our primary customers utilizing Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are in the financial services, government, and manufacturing sectors. They select Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls due to their superior performance and security capabilities compared to alternative firewall solutions.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities for our customers.

Palo Alto Firewalls integrate machine learning into their core functionality to offer real-time, inline attack prevention that our customers rely on.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls offer a variety of models designed to protect data centers in all work environments. These models share standard features.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls can significantly reduce downtime, and replacing a firewall typically takes only one to two minutes.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' single-path architecture offers a valuable feature, ensuring stable performance for our customers.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls pricing has room for improvement.

I would like Palo Alto Networks to provide a free virtual firewall.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for three years.

I have not encountered any stability issues using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

The scalability of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is limited because of the lack of a virtual firewall.

The local support is better than the corporate support.

Neutral

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are expensive compared to other solutions.

I would rate the price eight out of ten, with ten being the most costly.

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

Although Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are more expensive than other firewalls, they provide better protection and are a better value for your money.

The unified platform provided is very important to us as it allows us to manage all traffic and ensure security without using separate tools. It has AI and ML capabilities, which work well for real-time attack prevention.

Since implementing Palo Alto, we've seen an 80-90 percent reduction in issues. It handles ISP links, ensuring minimal downtime. Recently, we upgraded our secondary ISP to 3 Gbps, and when the primary link goes down, it automatically switches to the secondary. As a result, end users do not experience bandwidth shortages or interruptions in internet access.

One area for improvement with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewall would be customer support. Currently, in regions like India, customer support is handled by third-party partners. Unfortunately, the support provided by these partners has not been satisfactory. It would be beneficial if the tool handled customer support directly, similar to how Cisco maintains high-quality customer care. This would ensure that customers receive the level of support they expect.

Getting reliable service is important when you're a customer, especially with critical devices like firewalls. Firewalls are key parts of a network; if they fail, the whole network can become unstable. So, the support you get needs to be just as reliable as the device itself.

I have been working with the product for a year. 

I haven't experienced any downtime. 

We used Cisco ASA before. At that time, Cisco didn’t have a unified next-generation (NG) firewall, and I’m unsure if they offer one now. The main reason we decided to switch was that we needed a unified NG firewall. Besides the unified features that NG firewalls provide, there were other differences between Cisco and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, particularly in terms of features and price. However, the features are mostly similar across different firewalls; it depends on how they’re implemented, how effective they are for end users, and how well they handle security. This varies from company to company and firewall to firewall because each has its architecture, data plan, processing, control, and so on. So, it depends on the original equipment manufacturer.

The tool's deployment is complex and takes seven to eight days to complete. 

The tool's pricing is similar to that of Cisco. It's a security appliance; the cost depends on your network topology and specific requirements. The suitability of NG firewalls should be chosen based on your network and what you need. If a colleague from a different company asked for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I suggest they consider options like Sophos. Sophos took over Cyberoam, which was previously a leader in NG firewalls

I work with the product, and we purchased our box after a demo. We also have IoT security, but I don't personally handle that. I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. 

We protect certain applications in the data center with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

Application layer security and integration with other components that we have in our networks are valuable features.

Compared to other firewalls from Check Point, Fortinet, and Cisco, for example, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls use the most advanced techniques. They have sandbox integration and others in the orchestrator. Palo Alto's security features are at a higher level than those of the competitors at the moment.

It's very important that we be able to integrate all security capabilities within the firewall. This is one of the key reasons why we chose to go with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

We are heavily investing in technology that uses machine learning. Thus, it is important for us that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embed machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention.

Palo Alto needs to provide more support during the design phase and with proposals. They need to be more proactive, try to anticipate issues, and then help us to implement the transformation quickly.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for five years now.

We have not had any issues with stability. I have not heard from our SOC about issues with devices either.

The scalability has been good. We are the biggest bank in Italy with 100,000 employees.

Palo Alto's technical support is extremely good and responsive. The ticketing system, however, is a little bureaucratic especially when you are in a hurry or are dealing with an emergency. On a scale from one to ten, overall, I would rate technical support a nine.

Positive

The deployment was quite easy.

We have seen a return on investment in general. Our company is moving to the cloud and toward digital transformation in the financial sector. Palo Alto plays a key role in this return on investment.

My advice to you, if you're looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, is that the cheapest firewall is not the best for security.

We use firewall solutions from multiple vendors, and from a security point of view, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are one of the best in comparison. Also, you get the best value from Palo Alto with application layer security, machine learning, and integration.

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

I find it valuable to attend an RSA Conference because I get the opportunity to participate in several seminars, share, and learn from other people as well.

Attending RSAC also impacts our purchasing decisions because what I see at the conference will end up in the budget the following year or the year after that.

We use the solution to protect our internal network from external threats.

Up until recently we were not using multilayer firewalls and were using several solutions that are combined in Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

We are required to provide our network test results to our central bank, and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls offer a robust report for this purpose that would otherwise be a cumbersome human task.

The performance of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is the most valuable feature.

The analytics could be improved. I would like to have a unified analysis tool within Palo Alto, as we currently use Perimeter 81 and Fortinet FortiGate, which makes the analysis process take a long time.

I have been using the solution for almost four years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. We have three people that monitor the solution and maintain it.

The initial setup is straightforward. We had to secure our parameter network. We required two engineers from a reseller and two from our organization.

The implementation was completed with the help of a partner.

The solution is worth the price, as it can be utilized without the need for high-processing CPUs and resources, thus saving us overall.

I evaluated Check Point and decided to use Palo Alto because of its performance. Palo Alto can be used with fewer CPUs. 

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

Before using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls you must first know what our requirements are.

We use the solution to protect our network environment. We use three versions: 230, 440, and 820. 

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embed machine learning into the core of the firewall to provide real-time attack prevention, which is wonderful.

We check the machine learning logs to secure our networks against threats that are able to evolve more rapidly. 

I find the solution to be comfortable and easy to use. While I cannot completely authenticate my devices, I am able to distinguish between private devices and use them for authentication in some way, which is very helpful. The URL filtering feature is also helpful and I am very satisfied with the firewall delivery.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform that natively integrates all our security capabilities through Cortex XDR.

I give the solution's single-pass architecture for performance and security an eight out of ten.

There are many valuable features within the solution. This includes security, a user-friendly firewall, antivirus, and global protection.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' documentation, features, and user-friendliness are excellent.

The VPN has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for two and a half years.

For the most part, the stability is good but we sometimes face problems with the VPN connections.

The solution is scalable. We have 150 people that use the solution.

We often don't have to open a ticket as the documentation provided is usually comprehensive, and we can usually resolve most issues on our own. The one time I submitted a ticket, the technical support was not able to resolve the issue.

Positive

I previously used Forcepoint Next-Generation Firewall which is cheaper than Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls but I prefer Palo Alto because it is user-friendly and supports more devices and features. 

I was not involved in the initial setup but I did migrate the 820 to the 440 and it was straightforward. The migration took a few hours.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are expensive.

There is an additional cost for support.

I give the solution nine out of ten.

The maintenance consists of regular updates only.

Currently, we do not use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls across our entire network but we have plans to extend them in the future.

I recommend Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to others.

I design networks for our customers; I always use a high-speed packet filter upfront because I work for a Juniper partner company. This is usually a Juniper SRX series firewall and it does most of the easy work. Behind that, I add a more intelligent firewall, Palo Alto NGFW. We are partnered with Palo Alto, but that's not the main reason we use their solution. I worked with Check Point products for four years, and the Palo Alto alternative seriously impressed me. Here in Hungary, Palo Alto is considered the de facto intelligent firewall, for good reason.

I work for an integrator and support company, and I support our customer's security platforms; we have many customers with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

The firewalls improved our organization. Creating firewall rules is much simpler. The solution is so straightforward that customers can configure it themselves, and they rarely call us for that, which is great for us as a support company. It makes our job much easier as Palo Alto NGFWs don't require a security specialist to configure; it can be done by systems engineers or IT support staff. 

All the features are valuable, but my main one is the straightforward and well-designed GUI. I'm over 50 and have been in this business since the internet started. I'm not a GUI guy; I prefer using the command line. The product's GUI is excellent, and so is the threat intelligence. It's also straightforward to configure and flexible. The solution even has good networking, such as VLAN and subinterfaces, which is great because, in my experience, if the firewall is good, then the router usually isn't and vice-versa, but Palo Alto has both.

We use the on-premises solution, and it's very impressive; both flexible and intelligent. The machine learning functionality is excellent, and I love the product as a support guy because it makes my job much easier. I have very little troubleshooting, and our customers haven't had a single security incident since implementing Palo Alto. I'm deeply impressed with this solution.

The machine learning against evolving threats works well. The best thing I can say is that none of our customers have had any security issues; I can't find any problems with the solution.

The support is outstanding; we are always alerted about potential issues such as bugs in advance, so we have time to adapt and prepare. Palo Alto has grown more effective; most importantly, there haven't been any security issues. I would give the product a 10 out of 10 for flexibility and at least a seven for security. I can't say precisely what security threats our customers face, but nothing has gotten through.

The solution provides a unified platform, which is essential because there is a significant shortage of experienced IT specialists in Hungary and elsewhere. Their effectiveness is amplified by the quality and straightforward nature of the solution, and the result is more robust security.

I don't have a direct view of our customer's security threats as it is privileged information, but I can say that there have been no security breaches. I would say the solution does eliminate security holes. 

Our Palo Alto firewalls have the zero-delay signature feature implemented, and it works fine. There haven't been any issues with us or any of our customers. This feature makes the whole security system more efficient. 

The network performance is top-notch; I would give it a 10 out of 10. Intelligent firewalls tend to be slower, but this solution is fast. Previously, I used a simple packet filter or zone-based packet filter in conjunction with an intelligent firewall, but Palo Alto is fast and secure enough for standalone use. I've been familiar with the solution's architecture from the beginning, and it's a very nice platform.

I recommend this solution to any engineer; technically speaking, it's the best product on the market. I know it isn't the cheapest, and decisions are often made on a financial level, but Palo Alto in Hungary always gives us a good deal. 

The solution's VPN, called GlobalProtect, could be improved as I've had a few issues with that. 

It can be challenging to migrate configurations between Palo Alto firewalls or restart with a backup configuration using the CLI. That could be improved. I think I'm one of the only people still using the CLI over the GUI, so that's just a personal issue.

I have been working with the solution for four years.

The solution is incredibly stable.

We work with hardware platforms, and they are usually slightly over designed to be on the safe side. The virtual firewall is highly customizable, but I have experience with the hardware platforms, and there is an upper limit on those, but I haven't had any scaling issues thus far.

In Hungary, where I live, the population is 10 million, similar to London. When I say we have 1000 end-users, it may seem like a small number, but that's relatively high for Hungary. Other vendors also supply the solution here, so 1000 is just our customers.

I mostly do deployments and maintenance alone. There are three systems engineers at our company.

The customer service and support are good. I have full support when I have a problem, and they can even do remote assistance. We had a big power failure, and the firewall didn't restart; they provided a hardware expert over the phone to solve the problem. They are very impressive. I would say Juniper offers the best support, but Palo Alto is almost as good, if not just as good for me.

Positive

I have been in this business from the beginning, so I used most firewall solutions. I focused on Cisco for 15 years, but that changed due to license-based selling in a very price-sensitive market. Cisco is not as viable an option as it used to be as customers consider it too expensive. I also used a Check Point solution, which was regarded as the go-to intelligent firewall five years ago, but now Palo Alto has taken that top spot. 

We are partners with several providers, including Juniper, Palo Alto, and a few others, but I always go with Palo Alto because it's a straightforward solution with easy installation.

The setup is easy; it's straightforward for anyone with basic networking and security knowledge. It's comparable to setting up a firewall at home, which is very impressive. It's still easy with very complex network setups, only the VPN concentrator, GlobalProtect, is more challenging, as it requires two-factor authentication, but it's still straightforward.

Initial setup time depends on the specific implementation, but we can do a new deployment in one or two days. It is more complicated when migrating from other platforms because the customer expects the same logic and features in the new platform. Palo Alto has an excellent marketing strategy, so their customers know their product uses a unique logic. This helps keep the implementation straightforward and shorter compared to other solutions. 

My implementation strategy begins with a plan for the customer's network based on their needs. Then I set up all the networking parameters and configure the solution in my lab device, so I can export it and import it on-site. Every setup begins in our lab, as it's more impressive to go to the customer and import the configuration right away. 

I don't know about the price of the platform or the license fees, as the finance department deals with that. I only bill for the materials involved in the design.

I don't know about the price. When there's a new project, I go to the meeting, but after a point, all the engineers leave when it comes to money because it's not our business. I know Palo Alto offers good discounts for the partners, and the solutions are good. They offer free trials and win many customers because it allows them to test products and see how well they perform.

The only thing I can say is it's a top technology. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Cloud-based solutions are very unpopular in Eastern Europe, only private clouds are used, but on-premises is the favored deployment method. We use cloud solutions at home and for small companies or companies with particular use cases. I implemented the solution for a customer, and my first task was to disable all cloud-related features. It's exceedingly difficult to find a financial or government institution using a cloud-based platform; this market segment tends to have a more conservative mentality.

I don't use the solution personally, but I'm the first-level troubleshooter. If I can't solve a problem, I open a ticket to Palo Alto's customer support.

I have clients who used separate firewalls and VPN concentrators, but after switching to this solution, they now use the Palo Alto firewall and its VPN, GlobalProtect. I don't think it's the best VPN concentrator, it's an excellent firewall, but the weak point is the VPN.

I advise reading the documentation before configuring, which goes for any platform.

We have deployed Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and every web filter security available. So, we came to know each website user who got blocked and the "not required" categories. These categories are permanently blocked, and if any changes are required in these categories, we will first get approval from management. 

I like the sandbox feature, and it's very good. It kills each malware deployment in the sense of signatures within five minutes. So, we can secure our network and infrastructure very well within the stipulated time.

The WildFire functionality is very good because a few files are also getting blocked. It's critical as malware attacks are also getting ignored, and the logging is very well maintained in this firewall.

The most valuable solutions in this field are application-based firewalls. That is the main criteria of the firewall and functionality. We can get all the logs related to this and each and every packet. I like that the firewall is working as an application. The application-based entity we have deployed is well maintained and working very well.

We were able to find lots of vulnerabilities when we deployed it, but we could not disclose all. But there were vulnerabilities we could block by updating the firewall and taking actions on clientside machines. So, we got to know that we have lots of vulnerabilities inside the organization too, and we took lots of steps and resolved the number of vulnerabilities.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is an all-in-one solution. It provides every entity log, which is a very good functionality of this firewall. It gives every packet and aspect that the firewall is performing through its logs, and it does it very well.

This firewall's unified platform helped eliminate multiple network security tools. If anyone uses P2P sites, cryptocurrency websites, or any illegal sites, we can block it easily. It gives us a proper alert for these kinds of sites, and it properly secures our network. Monitoring is the best thing we are doing here, and we can block this kind of vulnerability as soon as it comes to us.

We are not happy with Palo Alto at all. It would be better if they provided more support for the firewall. We have a few pending issues with the configuration for each application. We cannot deploy them yet due to some support-related problems in the firewall.

We have deployed a few policies for DNS spoofing and DNS attacks, but we could only block a few IP addresses through the policy. That's DNS security, and we have configured a few policies for DNS spoofing and more.

URL categorization and URL filtering are not yet adequately maintained. For example, if you created a few rules in the rule-based configuration and made some rules downstairs, you will lose some of them if you give access upstairs. It's not giving us a proper solution for which route it is using. We need to apply the application-based policies and URL filtering-based policies. It creates more issues because we are not getting good support from the team.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for the last three or four years.

Stability in the sense of security and alerts, this solution is very good, and we have not had had any issues. However, web filtering and application-based approach are very poor.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a scalable solution.

Palo Alto Networks support could be better. We bought this solution for security purposes, and we asked the support team to convert each and every entity. They have not been able to convert this New Generation Firewall to date. 

Their name suggests that the product will use every application and work as a New-Generation Firewall. Yet, it's not configured, and we can only configure 30% to 40% of the applications. That is also giving us some problems sometimes.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks support a three.

We have a policy in our organization to change the firewall every five years. So, I have experience working on FortiGate, SonicWall, and WatchGuard over the last 20 years.

WatchGuard is very good at web filtering. FortiGate is also very good, and they have their own application to manage the firewall, and SonicWall is also very good. 

Palo Alto is a web-based firewall, and there are no applications to deploy and support. I mean, I take all the logs and all things from the client-side. As it's web-based, it's extremely slow. 

When you click on a particular log, it will take a lot of time because it generates lots of logs. That is a good thing, but performance is a little slow. Both WatchGuard and FortiGate are very good for this kind of thing. Also, WatchGuard is application-based, and I didn't have to deploy it. I came to know about Palo Alto from my friends who said it was very good for application-based security. 

The initial setup and deployment are straightforward. We did not have any issues at all. It took us about 15 to 20 days to implement this solution. 

The policies we have with Atelier and WatchGuard were exported, and we tried to deploy these policies on the new firewall. The reseller helped us configure it but without our concession or permission and could not deploy the firewall. We later had more problems, and the reseller helped us with that as well.

Video Import Solutions is our local reseller in Pune, India. In our experience, not every engineer knew the firewall concept. I mean, not at all. If we wanted something new or had to deal with this application-related issue, they always told us they would log a case and resolve it. But they did not support us at all and did not give us any reason why they could not do it.

I am a technical guy, and I would say that you will not get a return on your investment. Even FortiGate and WatchGuard will offer next-generation solutions that perform better than Palo Alto Networks.

The price could be better. Pricing is very different compared to WatchGuard, which costs around 60 lakhs, and FortiGate, which costs approximately 40 lakhs. Palo Alto Networks costs about a crore which is very high pricing.

We bought this firewall, and our organization did not want to pay so much. We spent around one crore rupees which is not within our budget at all, and we are unhappy with them.

This firewall provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security
capabilities. It will queue all functionalities like firewall protection and alerts and track all DDoS attacks. It shares all the information with us, and we can monitor and take immediate action on the other alerts we receive.

I would advise potential users to only go for this solution if they have the budget and don't require any support. Only buy this firewall if you can install, configure, and solve potential problems on your own. If not, FortiGate and WatchGuard are much better options.

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

We use it to segregate traffic between different tenant instances and to manage secure access to environments, DMZ zones, and to communicate what the firewall is doing.

With Palo Alto NG Firewalls, we can pass all compliance requirements. We trust it and we are building the security of our environment based on it. We feel that we are secure in our network.

It also provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. It's very important because it gives us one solution that covers all aspects of security. The unified platform helps to eliminate security holes by enabling detection. It helps us to manage edge access to our network from outside sources on the internet and we can do so per application. It also provides URL filtering. The unified platform has helped to eliminate multiple network security tools and the effort needed to get them to work together with each other. In one appliance it combines URL filtering, intrusion prevention and detection, general firewall rules, and reporting. It combines all of those tools in one appliance. As a result, our network operations are better because we have a single point of view for our firewall and all related security issues. It's definitely a benefit that we don't need different appliances, different interfaces, and different configurations. Everything is managed from one place.

The most valuable features include the different security zones and the ability to identify applications not only by port numbers but by the applications themselves.

The DNS Security with predictive analytics and machine learning for instantly blocking DNS-related attacks works fine. We are happy with it.

And with the single-pass architecture, it provides a good trade-off between security and network performance. It provides good security and good network throughput.

The machine learning in Palo Alto NG Firewalls for securing networks against threats that are able to evolve and morph rapidly is good, in general. But there have been some cases where we get false positives and Palo Alto has denied traffic when there have been new updates and signature releases. Valid traffic gets blocked. We have had some bad experiences with this. If there were an ability, before it denies traffic, to get some kind of notification that some traffic is going to be blocked, that would be good.

In addition, there is room for improvement with the troubleshooting tools and packet simulator. It would help to be able to see how packets traverse the firewall and, if it's denied, at what level it is denied. We would like to see this information if we simulate traffic so we can predict behavior of the traffic flow, and not just see that information on real traffic.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for about three years.

The solution is pretty stable.

The scalability is good.

In terms of the extensiveness of use, it depends on business needs. Every communication from the company is going through this solution, so it's highly used and we are highly dependent on the solution. 

In terms of increasing our use of the solution, it all comes down to business needs. If the business needs it, and we get to the limit of the current appliance, we will consider updating it or adding more appliances. At this point, we're good.

We previously used Cisco. The switch was a business decision and may have had to do with cost savings, but I'm not sure what the driver was.

The initial setup was a little bit complex, but not terrible. The complexity was not related to the product. It was more to do with needing to prepare and plan things properly so that in the future the solution will be scalable. If there were some predefined templates for different use cases, that would help. Maybe it has that feature, but I'm not familiar with it.

The time needed for deployment depends on the requirements. We also continuously optimized it, so we didn't just deploy it and forget it.

Our implementation strategy was to start with allowing less access and then allowing more and more as needed. We made the first configuration more restrictive to collect data on denied traffic, and then we analyzed the traffic and allowed it as needed.

We have less than 10 users and their roles are security engineers and network engineers. We have three to four people for deployment and maintenance and for coordinating with the business, including things such as downtime and a cut-over. The network and security engineers work to confirm that the configuration of the solution is meeting our requirements.

We did it ourselves.

I'm not sure about pricing. I don't know if Palo Alto NG Firewalls are cheaper or not, but I would definitely recommend Palo Alto as an option.

If you need additional features, you need additional licenses, but I'm not aware of the cost details.

We evaluated Cisco, Sophos, Dell EMC SonicWall, and FortiGate. Cost and reputation were some of the key factors we looked at, as well as the flexibility of configuration. Another factor was how many users could comfortably work on the solution when publicly deployed.

The fact that Palo Alto NG Firewalls embed machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention is important, but I still don't completely trust it. I haven't really seen this feature. Maybe it's somewhere in the background, but I haven't gotten any notifications that something was found or prevented. At this point, we still use traditional approaches with human interaction.

Overall, what I have learned from using Palo Alto is that you need to be very detailed in  your requirements.