Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

The primary use case is the centralized management of our firewalls.

It provides a quicker response time to vulnerabilities and more visibility into traffic flows.

I think it increases staff productivity.

Its automatability: You need it to automate things. We have used it for URL blocking. For example, if there is a threat out there, and we needed to immediately block a new malicious URL across a global enterprise, this is pretty difficult. With Panorama, we can automate this easily with their API. 

My pain point is the automation process is not well-documented. There are some things that they could improve on there.

If you go in the system to search for something, it is not intuitive. They could really improve that.

There is a concept of device groups and a concept of templates. The templates can allow for inheritance, but the device groups do not.

It is fairly stable. We do pretty heavy bug testing. We have a rigorous code review process that we go through for each version. Therefore, stability is on the top of our list of things that we look at. So, I haven't ran into any issues where it's flaking out altogether. 

It's fairly scalable. We probably have 12 to 16 of them spread across the globe to help with regional redundancy, because we don't want our firewall talking to Panorama across a slow land link. So, we've split them out globally, but it seems pretty scalable.

The technical support is pretty good. We do have a resident engineer from Palo Alto who sits right next to me. 

The initial setup is easy, but I have done it like a thousand times before with a bunch of other products. The product is not much different than anything else.

We outsource a lot of our boots on the ground, which is actually a lot by design. With every company, when you have two different organizations working together, there is always a little bit of tension. They don't have the same reporting structure, but everything went out smoothly. 

Typically, I'll design the solution, then I'll have somebody else implement it. This is sort of how it works for everything.

With the URL filtering, we probably went down from around four hours in response time to about five minutes.

The licensing is not cheap. There are always hidden costs. You have support costs, or maybe you need to buy more optics on how the solution fits into the rest of your environment. It is possible some of the rest of your environment will need to change too.

I think we're getting AlgoSac, which is another firewall automation tool. However, I wasn't involved with the decision for that one so I'm not too sure on the specifics, but I know we are going with them.

If you are looking at getting a Palo Alto firewall, then you should probably at least look into Panorama. Because if you start out just putting in firewalls and you don't have this, you will be kicking yourself that you didn't have this from day one. 

If you have just one firewall out there, maybe you don't need it. However, if you have two or three, then you should probably get it to be in front of a lot of the features which you will want eventually.

It is pretty solid product. Our security program is fairly immature compared to other enterprises, and this product has definitely helped us lock down things.

We have a rigorous code review process. Therefore, we are always back a bunch of versions. If the latest version came out today with new features on it, we probably wouldn't get to that for quite a while.

There are only certain things that you can do within the Panorama solution.

We use it only for management. It's dependent on the customer environment. If they have more than one Palo Alto product, they prefer to buy Panorama because you can manage all Palo Alto products.

Suppose you have four or five firewalls for different environments related to the same customer. You can buy one license for Panorama and handle the management of all these firewalls simultaneously from one console.

We usually use the same use cases related to it because we're working with only government parastatals. We have certain criteria that we cannot move out of, and we should be in the same line as they provide for us.

I like its flexibility.

It could be easier to manage. In the future, it should be much easier because it's not very easy to manage. So in the next release, I think it should be much easier to manage, especially in the first configuration. It could also be more stable.

I used Palo Alto Networks Panorama for about a year and a half.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is fairly stable. Sometimes it takes a long time. Sometimes there is a delay in pushing the policy or configuration between the Panorama and the host.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable.

Palo Alto technical support is good, and they answer in really good time.

It's easy to install, but the configuration is not simple as the installation. Nevertheless, the deployment should take less than ten minutes.

We're an integrator, and we implement this solution.

Sometimes the company prefers to give a license to test the product in our environment before we go to the customer. But the customer should buy his own license, and that's the system here. The system is different between one country and another. Some countries say that the IT solutions provider should provide the license.

I lived in Turkey before, and over there, the customer buys the license and provides this license to the IT solutions provider. However, here in Qatar, the customer asks the IT solutions provider to do everything.

I would recommend this product to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven.

We use Palo Alto Networks Panorama to monitor and have centralized control.

The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Panorama are centralized management. We can manage all our firewalls.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama could improve by making the solution less expensive.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for one year.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a stable solution.

I have found Palo Alto Networks Panorama to be scalable and it is easy.

We have two engineers that use the solution.

I have previously used Fortinet FortiGate, but we found Palo Alto Networks Panorama had a lot more features and this is why we switched.

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama was simple. The time of the implementation depends on the environment.

We used an integrator for the implementation of Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be lower.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of ten.

It is a central firewall management solution.

Centralized firewall management and update management are the most valuable features.

They can improve its cloud integration. 

I have been using this solution for more than five years.

It is very stable.

We haven't scaled it. Currently, five to ten people are using it on a daily basis.

Their technical support is excellent.

Its initial setup is very simple.

It was done internally. It does require maintenance, and the administrators are responsible for this.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of ten.

Via the management display, you can actually manage multiple firewalls within it. We have multiple sites and are able to manage multiple firewalls very well.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The solution scales well.

The product has been quite stable so far.

Technical support is helpful and knowledgeable.

The user interface is pretty good.

The pricing of the product is fair. It's not too high.

The product does need a bit of configuration. It's not quite ready to go out of the box.

The solution could do a bit more with its security updates. Palo Alto in general could be a bit more secure.

Support is pretty good, however, they could always be a bit faster and more responsive.

I've been using Palo Alto products for three years and Panorama for about one year. 

The solution is very stable. We didn't have any issues with crashes or freezing. There aren't bugs or glitches. It works well.

The solution can scale if you need it to.

We have multiple sites. We have ten to 20 branches across India.

Technical support is pretty good. they have good engineers on their side. They are very helpful and they follow up. We're very satisfied with their level of support.

The installation process took several steps. First of all, we needed to do all the media files. I basically just downloaded the media files from the folder. Then we deployed into the VM. We added a management tool in Palo Alto. After that, we needed to ensure that the Palo Alto and Panorama were using the correct serial number, and we needed to set up a template to get a US2. We then purchased a warranty and listed the policies from the Panorama to Palo Alto. 

I'm not quite sure how long the full deployment took.

The solution isn't too expensive. It's reasonable, especially if you compare it to other options on the market.

We are Palo Alto partners.

I believe I am using a variation of version nine from Panorama. I've deployed the solution on a virtual machine, however, I've never deployed it to the cloud.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

Overall, I would rate it at a seven on a scale from one to ten.

We are using it to manage the configuration of the firewall to validate that the environment is properly hardened (i.e., vulnerabilities are minimized).  

Networks Panorama has improved our organization by allowing us to operate more efficiently and make sure that fewer errors are made in our security setup and choices.  

The most valuable feature in my opinion is the compliance capabilities that help us meet defined requirements. These features are very effective at identifying things that need to be properly hardened.  

I would like to see Networks Panorama more integrated into the firewall solutions rather than being a separate component. This would be helpful so that we can do rule-based change management for the firewall through it as well.  

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for about nine months.  

I think that Networks Panorama has been a very stable solution.  

I have not had any issues in working with the scalability of the product. We have about five users who are primarily IP security that work directly with the product. The number of users is not a problem. The scalability obviously has to do with applying the product to the architecture.  

My experience with Palo Alto technical support has been excellent.  

The installation and setup are very straightforward.  

The pricing model is reasonable for this class of solutions.  

Implementing Palo Alto Panorama is something I would strongly recommend for people who are considering it that have a need for this kind of security solution. It makes your life a lot easier in building a robust security response.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate this product overall as a nine-out-of-ten. If they fix the integration, that would bring it up pretty much right to a ten-of-ten at least for now.  

We use the solution to manage the several Palo Alto firewalls we have. We are customers of Palo Alto and I'm an information systems and security manager.

I think the centralized management is a valuable feature because you can set corporate wide policies and push it out to all the firewalls without touching each one. 

I'd like to see improvement in the speed and reliability of the solution. They're the two things most important to me right now. 

I've been using the solution for the past 18 months. 

The solution always runs but the problems we have occur when we make changes. Sometimes the results are not what we expected. Sometimes you make changes in the software and then you push it to the firewalls. Theoretically, you should be able to make the changes and push at the same time but we have found that we have to save them first and then push. After that it usually works. That process could be simplified. We have two people using the solution.

I can't speak to the scalability of the solution. 

We hired a consultant for the initial setup. None of our staff are firewall engineers. We're more like firewall administrators and our environment is quite complex. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

The ability to manage a large number of firewalls from a single point is most valuable.

Its scalability can be improved. It is too expensive to scale it in the way Palo Alto wants us to scale. Scalability is one of the main reasons why our customer is looking for alternatives. It is too expensive to scale.

Its redundancy also requires improvement, but it seems that in the latest version, redundancy is improved, and you can have more than two devices in an HA pair. So, they are heading in that direction.

It would be good if they combine their dynamic list functionality in a much better way with Panorama and include it as out-of-the-box functionality. Palo Alto supports the dynamic list functionality for some basic threats, but there is a lot of scope for improvement.

I have been using this solution for almost nine years.

It is 100% stable.

It is too expensive to scale, which is one of the main reasons why our customer is looking for alternatives.

Its initial setup is straightforward. If you have a basic knowledge of Palo Alto Networks, you will be able to spin it up.

I would recommend this solution. It is the best in the class.

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