Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

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 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.

We use the solution as a firewall for our network. We can manage our traffic between internal traffic and external traffic handling. The solution protects the traffic and we manage the standard firewall issues.

The solution's embedded machine learning in the core of the firewall that provides in-line real-time attack prevention is important and provides good insight for us. The machine learning actions and learning activities provide some useful information. 

The solution's machine learning for securing our networks against rapidly evolving threats is good. We utilize an IoT tool that comprehends IoT devices, such as webcams, and can therefore interpret their behavior and send information on their activity. The tool also applies appropriate firewall rules to these devices, taking into account the clearance level of each device based on its traffic.

Before implementing Palo Alto, we had to rely on a management company to handle our firewall security. However, now that we have Palo Alto, we can manage our firewall security in-house.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls unified platform helped to eliminate security holes.

The zero-delay signature feature helps keep our security updated against new attacks.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provides a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities which is important to our organization.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' zero-delay signature feature is important, and it receives daily updates.

At times, server capacity can result in issues. While Palo Alto is a top firewall company, it's crucial to properly size the firewall to meet our needs. In the case of larger attacks, the capacity of our current firewall may not be adequate, requiring us to obtain more advanced and expensive versions to ensure network protection.

There is a tradeoff between security and network performance, as security is always top-notch, but performance can sometimes lag and has room for improvement.

The cost of the solution has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for one year.

I give the stability an eight out of ten.

The solution is not very scalable. We need to define our requirements and purchase the correct product for our needs.

We are an enterprise company with over 3,000 people. All the network traffic goes through the solution but we have five people that work directly on the solution.

The technical support is great.

Positive

We previously used Check Point NGFW and switched to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls because of the stability.

I give the initial setup a five out of ten. The deployment took one month.

Implementation was completed in-house by a consultant.

Compared to other firewall solutions, this is an expensive solution.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls to protect small businesses that work within the defense industrial base.

By using Prisma Access, we can easily connect to our network from different locations around the world without having to deploy multiple firewalls. This not only makes it more convenient but also saves us a lot of expenses.

Prisma Access is the most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

The ability to provide secure access to people without having to carry an additional device around really benefits us in the defense industrial base.

The training provided is satisfactory, but there is certainly room for improvement. It would be great to have more comprehensive training at a lower cost, or even for free.

I would say that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls provide a unified platform for many, but not all.

Having everything in one pane of glass is important to me because I have a lot of responsibilities. It would be really nice to have everything in one place, so I don't have to switch around between different applications and can stay focused on one platform.

It's important to have machine learning embedded, but it's equally important to not solely rely on it. We still need human interaction to ensure proper security measures. Nonetheless, machine learning is a vital component of our security strategy.

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

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have been instrumental in reducing our downtime as we moved away from less robust devices. By implementing Palo Alto firewalls, we have significantly improved our network stability.

If I had to estimate, it has saved us 10 to 15 hours per year.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a very stable solution.

I haven't encountered the need to scale the solution yet. Our current setup meets our requirements and has been working well for us. Given that we are a small company, we have not felt the need to look into scaling it at this point.

The technical support provided by Palo Alto Networks is excellent. Although I have only needed to contact them a few times, they have always been quick to respond, and their team is very knowledgeable.

I would rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Before, we used SonicWall, but we decided to switch to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls because they offer a much better solution and are leading the market.

I was part of the deployment team, but since I was new to Palo Alto devices, the deployment process was more complex for me. That's where the training came into play.

I had to familiarize myself with their user interface and terminologies since I was used to using a different system. It took some time for me to learn and compare it with what I've used before.

We purchased from a reseller.

It was a straightforward process. We made the purchase online and they shipped it to us. After that, it was a matter of getting it up and running.

It's difficult to determine. When looking at the ten to fifteen hours a year, it's unclear whether or not I would consider that as part of the return on investment. It's a bit challenging to assess from an IT perspective.

Reducing costs is important, especially since Prisma can be expensive. It would be great if it were more affordable.

Although the hardware can be expensive, the quality of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is excellent. While a lower cost would be desirable, we recognize the value of investing in a reliable and effective solution.

When we were moving away from SonicWall, we evaluated FortiGate and Meraki's solutions.

In my opinion, I was impressed with FortiGate's system on a chip. It was really fast compared to Palo Alto's, but I think Palo Alto has a better feature set and interface. As for SonicWall, we had several reasons for leaving. Regarding Meraki, I find their management interface not suitable for my needs, and they seem to be more of a consumer-grade or prosumer-grade product.

I am not in a position to comment on the solution's ability to secure data centers consistently across all workplaces, from the smallest office to the largest data centers since I have only used their smaller solutions.

My advice to those who are seeking a firewall solution is not to prioritize the cheapest or the fastest options, as it could be risky. Instead, it is important to invest in the best quality firewall that is within your budget. This is something that I have experienced with Palo Alto Networks, which provides a high-quality solution that is worth the investment.

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

The experience has been amazing, with a few sessions resulting in new services that I can offer my company directly. The best part is that I can do it without having to invest in an expensive tool that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It does impact the purchases we will make throughout the year.

If I can perform 95% of the work at a lower cost, we are unlikely to consider Mandiant and spend a significant amount of money. 

We use it as an Internet-facing parameter firewall. In my environment, it has security and routing. It is on a critical path in terms of routing, where it does a deep inspection, etc.

There have been a lot of improvements from security to service.

It is critical that Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls embeds machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. In my environments, we have an integration with a third-party vendor. As soon as there is new information about new threats and the destination that they are trying to reach on any of our network devices, that traffic will be stopped.

Setting up a VPN is quite easy. 

It gives you a lot of information when you are monitoring traffic. 

In terms of user experience, Palo Alto has very good user administration.

Machine learning is important. Although we have not exhausted the full capabilities of the firewall using machine learning, the few things that we are able to do are already very good because we have an integration with a third-party. We are leveraging that third-party to get threat intelligence for some destinations that are dangerous, as an example. Any traffic that tries to go to those destinations is blocked automatically. There is a script that was written, then embedded, that we worked on with the third-party. So, machine learning is actually critical for our business.

There is a bit of limitation with its next-generation capabilities. They could be better. In terms of logs, I feel like I am a bit limited as an administrator. While I see a lot of logs, and that is good, it could be better.

I wanted Palo Alto Networks engineering to look at the traffic log, because I see traffic being dropped that happens to be legitimate. It would be interesting for me to just right click on the traffic, select that traffic, and then create a rule to allow it. For example, you sometimes see there is legitimate traffic being dropped, which is critical for a service. That's when actually you have to write it down, copy, a rule, etc. Why not just right click on it and select that link since that log will have the source destination report number? I would like to just right click, then have it pop up with a page where I can type the name of the rule to allow the traffic.

I started using Palo Alto in 2015.

It is very stable. We had two outages this year that were not good. They were related to OSPF bugs. Those bugs affected our service availability. 

It is quite scalable. I have been able to create a lot of zones to subinterfaces for a number of environments. I don't really have any issues regarding scalability. It meets my expectations.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls technical support is very poor. Three or four months ago, I had a bug where the database of the firewall was locked. You cannot do anything with it. We looked for documentation, giving us a procedure to follow, but the procedure didn't work. We logged a complaint with Palo Alto Networks, and they gave us an engineer. The engineer relied on documentation that doesn't work, and we had already tested. In the end, the engineer gave us an excuse, "No, we need this account to be able to unlock it." This happened twice. The way out of it was just to restart the firewall. You can restart the firewall and everything goes back to normal. Therefore, I think the support that we got was very poor.

Neutral

I have used Check Point and Cisco ASA.

Initially, when I started with Palo Alto, we had Cisco ASA, but Palo Alto Networks beat ASA hands down.

We have a multi-vendor environment with different providers. Our standard is that we can't have the same firewall for each parameter, so there is some kind of diversity. 

We had ASA looking at one side of the network and Palo Alto Networks looking at the other side of the network. We also had Juniper looking at another side of the network. At the end of the day, ASA was very good, I don't dispute that. However, in terms of functionality and user experience, Palo Alto Networks was better. 

Palo Alto Networks beat ASA because it was a next-generation firewall (NGFW), while ASA was not.

When we bought Palo Alto, we had Juniper devices in our environment. We were told that it was a bit like Juniper, so we were happy. However, some people were a bit skeptical and scared of Juniper firewalls. Because of that, it took us a very long time to put them on the network. However, as soon as we did the implementation, we realized that we were just thinking too much. It was not that difficult. 

We deployed Palo Alto Networks as part of a project for data center implementation. The implementation of the firewall didn't take long.

We buy through a third-party. Our account is managed by IBM.

We have seen ROI. There is more visibility in the environment in terms of security. There was a time when we suspected a security breach, and this firewall was able to give us all the logs that we expected. 

Palo Alto is like Mercedes-Benz. It is quite expensive, but the price is definitely justified.

One thing is system administration. In our opinion, Palo Alto administration is easier compared to other vendors. I know other vendors who have Check Point. You have to manage Check Point, and it is a bit cumbersome. It is a very nice, powerful firewall, but you need more knowledge to be able to manage Check Point compared to Palo Alto. Palo Alto is very straightforward and nice to use.

In our environment, troubleshooting has been easy. Anybody can leverage the Palo Alto traffic monitoring. In Cisco ASA and Check Point, you also have these capabilities, but capturing the traffic to see is one thing, while doing the interpretation is another thing. Palo Alto is more user-friendly and gives us a clearer interpretation of what is happening.

One thing that I don't like with Palo Alto is the command line. There isn't a lot of documentation for things like the command line. Most documents have a graphic user interface. Cisco has a lot of documents regarding command lines and how to maneuver their command line, as there are some things that we like to do with the command line instead of doing them with the graphic interface. Some things are easy to do on a graphic interface, but not in the command line. I should have the option to choose what I want to do and where, whether it is in the command line or a graphic interface. I think Palo Alto should try to make an effort in that aspect, as their documentation is quite poor.

We would rather use Cisco Umbrella for DNS security.

I compared the price of Palo Alto Networks with Juniper Networks firewall. The Juniper firewall is quite cheap. Also, Palo Alto Networks is a bit expensive compared to Cisco Firepower. Palo Alto Networks is in the same class of Check Point NGFW. Those two firewalls are a bit expensive.

It gives us visibility. In my opinion, the first firewall that I would put on our network is Palo Alto Network and the second would be Check Point.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is a very good firewall. It is one of the best firewalls that I have used.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks as nine out of 10.

Our primary use case is protecting our clients from remote threats on the internet. These firewalls are very powerful and important for our business.

With single-pass architecture, there isn't a trade-off between security and network performance. The device functions well in terms of both security and network performance together.

One of the most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is application symmetries. I like this feature.

Also, the embedded machine learning in the core of the firewall means the device learns about threat types. The machine learning also enables the solution to secure networks against threats that evolve rapidly.

The solution also provides a unified platform that integrates all security capabilities, which helps prevent external attacks, and eliminates the need for multiple network security tools and the effort needed to make them work together.

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

The stability is good. It's a very stable device. That is the biggest lesson I have learned from using them.

The scalability is very good. If our customer has distributed networks, Palo Alto is a good solution.

In general, the solution is good for midsize companies, between 100 and 2,000 users.

We plan to increase our usage of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls in the future.

I rate the technical support highly. Palo Alto's technical team is very helpful and provides fast solutions.

We previously used Palo Alto Cortex. We switched because the NG Firewalls are very stable, flexible, and more powerful.

The initial setup is easy. The initial config takes one or two hours. After that, the time needed depends on the customer's requirements.

For mid-sized networks, the solution requires two to three people for deployment and maintenance. But in our company, we manage with one person for everything.

My responsibilities are on the technical side, but the price is expensive, especially in Turkey, where I am located. The exchange rate of the dollar against the Turkish lira is very high, making Palo Alto very expensive in our country.

Palo Alto is very expensive compared to other vendors, like Fortinet.

In addition to the standard fees, there is an extra cost for a GlobalProtect License, and that is something we generally need.

If a colleague were to say they are just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I don't know what I would say if they don't have the budget. But if they have a budget, I would recommend Palo Alto because, while another solution may be cheaper, it could be more expensive in total if you consider the potential loss of business continuity and reputation.

And while I don't use the PA-400 series, I know it sells well because the higher series are very expensive, and the 200 series is very slow and less powerful. The PA-400 series is good.

We use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls as a gateway for our data center and server files because they are a reliable and robust device, and the best in the security field. We also use their threat intelligence and threat protection services, which are like brass fittings.

Palo Alto enables telemetry and enriches their systems to protect our network against threats, which is why machine learning helps us secure our network.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have enhanced our security by around 20 percent.

The solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all of our security capabilities.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls help eliminate security holes by stopping all the known and unknown vulnerabilities that we are seeing in our network.

The single-path architecture has improved performance and latency.

The application awareness feature that recognizes application IDs and vulnerability protection are Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' most valuable features.

The price is high and has room for improvement.

We have Elite Plus partner support, which means we always have to speak to a partner to open a case. However, not all of the partners are knowledgeable or helpful.

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

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are stable.

When it comes to virtual machine editions or the cloud, I think they are more scalable than hardware. 

We have three administrators, 1,000 end users, and up to 400 servers that use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

We previously used Fortinet FortiGate firewalls but switched to Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for their superior performance. We also chose Palo Alto Networks because Gartner's reviews of their firewalls have consistently been better than those of Fortinet.

The initial setup is straightforward. However, enabling the security features and starting traffic inspection can be complex. The physical installation is easy.

The deployment for one device takes one day.

We have seen a return on investment in the two years that we have been using the solution.

Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls' price is expensive.

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

I recommend Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.