Palo Alto Networks PA-Series Reviews

There are various use cases, particularly for desktop scenarios. One of them involves exploring contacts. Virtual firewall use cases revolve around different scenarios, such as transitioning to the cloud. For instance, when Barclays uses Azure or AWS, there's a focus on meeting security obligations and implementing threat prevention to comply with regulations like GDPR or PPA. This includes creating segmentation to align with regulatory standards. As part of this process, security features available in cloud platforms like virtual firewalls and threat prevention are incorporated.

After the implementation here, especially since I work in the data center, I've noticed the significance of security. For example, Veeam, CDL, and other aspects became crucial, especially during the COVID period when users started working from home. This situation led to numerous blocks, and user profiles were getting blocked due to issues with IP addresses ending up on blocked lists. However, after implementing the 3M series virtual firewall, we were able to effectively manage security for our cloud applications, like those in AWS. This enabled us to monitor remote workers and take necessary actions, such as blocking problematic IP addresses. Consequently, we reduced the number of tickets raised with ISP providers.        

A valuable feature that we can consider is the deployment time, which is significantly reduced. It is almost 90% faster compared to other solutions. This leads to quicker deployment and less downtime.

I have found that the tool works well for me, but there are areas where security testing and protection could be improved, especially in virtual or cloud environments. However, in this project, once we deployed it, we haven't encountered any issues.

The cost is currently manageable, but as we migrate fully into the cloud, additional features like capacity upgrading and improvements to hardware resources will be necessary, especially since our equipment consists of older-generation switches and routers. So, I'm looking for additional capabilities in these areas.

I've been working on my current project for more than two years now.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability an eight and a half out of ten. 

The deployment is quite straightforward, and it's faster than it used to be. This means that there is less downtime involved.

From my perspective, managing the price is important, especially because we're a small business. For larger organizations like Barclays, we provide our requirements to the client, and they place the order on BigFix. It's their responsibility to consider their budget and make decisions accordingly. We appreciate the features we get, but the cost-sharing still depends on the client.

The client needs to provide approval for the POCs used by our team; it's not within my control.

When evaluating options, you should consider team members who are knowledgeable in supporting next-generation firewalls like NGFW. We also need to factor in the specific product offerings. For instance, if we have options like the PA-440, PA-850, and PA-8350, we should compare their prices and features. It's important to make decisions based on the situation and the needs of the organization.

Considering factors like availability and the specific situation, I would rate this an eight. It's important to explore other potential cases as well.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I use the solution to secure infrastructure boundaries. I use the product as a backend firewall for applications with traffic.

App-ID is a really good feature. The product’s URL filtering features are amazing. The security controls are also very good.

The support provided by the solution is not that good.

I am using the product currently.

The solution is stable. However, I observed some issues I did not expect from a well-known solution like Palo Alto. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The product has different models, and its high-end models can be scaled easily. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The support is good, but not that good.

Positive

The initial setup is a little tricky. It is not simple and straight.

Except for support, everything else in the product is perfect. If someone is looking for a perfect firewall, they should choose Palo Alto. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Most of our clients in Pakistan deploy Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for a variety of use cases. They primarily use it to target VLANs within their networks, including different types of networks like DMZ. These clients integrate the PA-Series with their applications, servers, and often utilize SSL VPNs for secure remote access. These scenarios are typical in the IT sector and align with the types of deployments we see commonly in our region.

We mostly utilize the Spireware profile within Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for threat prevention, which includes basic subscriptions like URL filtering. Many customers are highly satisfied with the threat prevention and firewall capabilities provided. While some customers use team applications like IBM SIM software, we primarily focus on mini CRMs for releases. Through integration and utilizing firewall data, we maintain a strong network security posture, addressing threats effectively. We also conduct security life cycle reviews and leverage tech support files from customers to continually improve our security measures.

The reporting feature and application ID functionality within Palo Alto Networks PA-Series are incredibly valuable to us. With the firewall, we can precisely control and block applications like WhatsApp, log activities, and prevent certain types of uploads. Utilizing the application IDs provided by Palo Alto Networks helps us secure our network effectively. Integration with other tools and systems further enhances our overall security posture. Some of our customers have integrated the Palo Alto Networks PA-Series with Forescout, and the integration is working exceptionally well. We've created policies using Post Guard to detect and block malicious traffic or duplications. When such threats are detected, both the firewall and Postgres work together to promptly block them within the network.

I don't have any specific suggestions for improving the Palo Alto Networks PA-Series at the moment. I find it to be a very effective solution, and I don't have any major complaints or areas for improvement in mind. However, pricing flexibility could be an aspect worth considering, as it has been a concern for some of our clients.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for 5 years.

Similarly, I find the product's stability to be top-notch, also rating it a 10.

In terms of scalability, I would rate it a solid 10 out of 10, indicating excellent scalability capabilities.

Regarding technical support, Palo Alto Networks has been very responsive and helpful whenever I've reached out for assistance or submitted a ticket, earning a positive recommendation from me for their support services.

Setting up Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for the first time is straightforward and easy, especially if you're familiar with firewalling and network configurations.

When it comes to handling large volumes of encryption traffic, PA-Series is effective when encryption detection is focused on sensitive data, although it may reduce speed for overall traffic. I rate PA-Series a 10 out of 10 and highly recommend it to other users due to its reliability and performance compared to competitors like Fortinet.

I use the solution in my company to cater to the needs of our clients, so based on the requirements of the clients, we configure the firewall.

Palo Alto's advantage is that it offers very secure products. Unit 42 in Palo Alto and sandboxing are advantages offered by the product, along with the fact that it provides users with updates every minute, so users keep getting updates. App-ID is the name of a feature in the product that is very good. None of the other firewall products offer the aforementioned features. With the product, the area around NAT is very secure, and users get a lot of options for NAT.

The technical support offered by Palo Alto is an area of concern where improvements are required. It is very difficult to get technical support, which is a very pathetic area. If you try to figure out a solution to your issues with the help of a web browser, it is very difficult to find a proper solution. Other firewall products have proper portals where everything gets published with all the details on how to resolve an issue. There is a need to have a dedicated person or specialist to manage Palo Alto, but getting one is a problem. Overall, the area of technical support is not user-friendly.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for eight years.

Some issues are there with the stability part of the solution, but based on the feedback from clients, Palo Alto sends updates like all other solutions. One can say that the tool is mostly stable.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

It is a scalable solution.

Our company has a strength of 250 employees.

My clients deal with two or three enterprise-sized clients who use Cisco. Small and medium-sized businesses use Palo Alto. Some of our big clients who operate at an enterprise level use Palo Alto.

It is very difficult to get to the product support team, and it takes at least half an hour to get connected with the technical team. I rate the technical support a four out of ten.

Neutral

For deployment, Palo Alto provides a tool that doesn't work properly on many of the systems from Windows, and only the product's previous versions work properly, but the latest versions don't work. Palo Alto offers Limited options to users and allows for easy migration when it comes to products like Cisco, Fortinet, or IBM, but for low-end servers, there are no options to migrate from the tool.

If a large part of a client's workforce operates with cloud services in place, then the solution can be deployed on the cloud. Nowadays, most people are moving to the cloud.

The time required to deploy the solution depends on the firewall size and configuration, but I know that it requires at least a month.

Our company has around 14 members from the network security side involved in the deployment process.

Price-wise, Palo Alto offers high-price products. It is mostly the enterprise-sized customers who prefer to use Palo Alto products. Recently, Palo Alto launched Palo Alto Networks PA-400, which is much cheaper than the other products on the market. My company has to make yearly payments or opt for a three-year payment when it comes to the charges associated with the licensing model of the product. The clients of the tool need to procure the license for the premium support. Almost all the vendors of firewall products follow the aforementioned steps nowadays when it comes to the licensing model.

Considering the presence scenario, I can suggest Fortinet since I found its products doing well in business. Support and configuration-wise, Fortinet is better than Palo Alto, but technology-wise, Palo Alto is the number one product in the market. Fortinet is much more user-friendly than Palo Alto.

The tool is not very easy to maintain, but people go for it since it is a secure product. Only those who know about Firewall products can maintain the solution.

Some of our company's clients have migrated from Palo Alto Networks PA-Series to FortiGate or Fortinet since it is very easy to manage with a very user-friendly UI.

Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is a good solution, but someone in the organization should manage it since it is not a very user-friendly tool. If you want to configure something, you need to know how Palo Alto Networks PA-Series works and also know about what architecture is and all. Other firewall products can be easily configured since very user-friendly GUIs are made available to users. Checking logs in Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is very difficult. If someone knows how to check logs, then it's fine because otherwise, it's very difficult.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We have a hybrid environment where we use a mixture of self hosted PA-Series. IRROLs and the vendor hosted by raws via the Prisma Access Solution. 

The direct profiles is a valuable feature. 

The pricing of the solution needs improvement. 

I have experience using Palo Alto Networks PA-Series. 

I have used Cisco and Fortinet. 

The initial setup of Palo Alto is a tricky one. 

It is a very expensive solution. 

I would rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

The tool's most valuable feature is WildFire. 

Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is expensive. We would like to see additional threat hunting features. 

I have been working with the product for more than five years. 

The product is stable. 

My company has 1000 users for Palo Alto Networks PA-Series. 

Palo Alto Networks PA-Series' support is very quick. 

Positive

We used Cisco before the Palo Alto Networks PA-Series. We chose the product because of its community. 

Palo Alto Networks PA-Series' deployment was easy and took one to two days to complete. My company has two to three administrators to manage the product. 

The tool's pricing was reasonable when we bought the product. We pay around 60,000 dollars per year. 

We evaluated Check Point, McAfee, and Fortinet. We chose Palo Alto Networks PA-Series because of its performance, pricing, and technical support. 

You need to do a POC before choosing the product. I rate it ten out of ten.  

The solution is used for security and IoT security.

The solution's licensing price could be improved. The solution's GUI should be user-friendly and easily configurable.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for the last three years.

I rate Palo Alto Networks PA-Series a seven out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability is not very good. Around 300 users use the solution in our organization, and we have plans to increase the usage.

The solution's technical support is good.

I have also worked with Fortinet and SonicWall.

The solution's initial setup is a little complex compared to other solutions.

It takes two to three hours to deploy the solution.

We have to pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution.

I would recommend Palo Alto Networks PA-Series to other users.

Overall, I rate Palo Alto Networks PA-Series a seven out of ten.

Almost all firewalls and OEMs provide the same features. Palo Alto blocks the new threats better than other tools. It provides better Wi-Fi analysis.

Palo Alto has too many features. The interface is complex. It could be better.

We are providing the solution to our customers.

We have sold the solution to eight to ten customers.

The support is good.

Positive

If the product doesn’t fit the budget of the customer, we sell solutions like Fortinet. Fortinet’s support is better than Palo Alto's. Fortinet is partner-friendly. Fortinet is cheaper in India. If a customer requires a product listed in Gartner, we suggest Palo Alto and Fortinet. Otherwise, we suggest Sophos.

Fortinet is better at maintaining partner relationships. Palo Alto also understands the partner’s needs and helps them out. Even the distributors’ technical teams help us. Fortinet’s interface is good. It is easier to deploy than Palo Alto.

It is easy to implement the solution.

The product is expensive. The product is suitable for customers who are not cost-sensitive. The new series for the SMB sector has a very good price.

My recommendation depends on the budget of the customer. The 400 series might be different, but we haven’t started pitching it to our customers. The tool is suitable for the customers who know what they are doing. Overall, I rate the tool a nine and a half out of ten.