Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

The solution is primarily used for firewall management. It is required for clients who want to manage a large number of firewalls in multiple locations. Otherwise, it is not too useful. It makes sense to use the product when the clients want to manage several branches.

Managing the firewalls in the branch locations from a central management console is easier. We can schedule tasks like firmware updates and send rules or policies to all the firewalls in a single stretch. Palo Alto is one of the best firewalls we can have in our environment. It has one of the best back-end databases for signatures and behavior-based analysis. Recently, the vendors integrated it with a lot of AI for threat prevention. Palo Alto is a leader in the market.

If we implement Cisco or Fortinet's firewall for the first time, anybody with a basic knowledge of firewalls can set the policies and rules. The implementation is not that easy. Though Palo Alto is much better and more efficient than many other products in the market, we need some skilled resources to manage the initial installation and configuration. It leads to an increase in service costs.

The tool is relatively stable. It has a good security portfolio in the market.

The support charges are pretty high. The subscription renewals are relatively much higher than those of the peers. However, the vendor is working on the pricing. They are also getting competitive because Fortinet is taking over many Palo Alto clients due to the cost.

Initial implementation is challenging to an extent. The setup takes time. Once it is implemented, then it's very straightforward. Once the person managing the setup gets a good experience with the product, it's pretty easy to manage and relatively smooth.

The high price gets compensated with the piece of mind of having Palo Alto in the environment.

Palo Alto is costly compared to Fortinet and Sophos. However, the vendor is working on cost-effective models. They are working on the back end to make it more attractive for SMBs.

Palo Alto and Check Point are the top products in the market. Fortinet and Cisco also have some good solutions.

Palo Alto has one of the best portfolios in the market if we need a very stable environment to manage the information security space for our organization or our client's organization in firewalling, application-level firewalling, and contextual-based firewalling. We can also look at Check Point as an option.

The vendor has AI incorporated into their new offerings. Generally, behavior analysis has to be more automated rather than manual. With AI incorporated, the back-end OS can understand and easily detect certain vectors, like the zero-day attack. It's in a very early stage. It'll take quite some time for Palo Alto to scale AI to the level where the entire thing can be automated.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our company uses the solution for monitoring and policies. We monitor data, make rules for firewalls, and allow source IPs to destination IPs with respect to ports and services. 

We also use UR filtering to allow or block things. We have a Prisma Access Firewall that we allow or block for remote users. 

We use the solution in a hybrid model with multiple on-premises instances plus the cloud-based version. 

The solution doesn't need a proxy for the Prisma Access Firewall. 

We can maintain our own policies within the solution and block things from the proxy perspective. 

When creating remote access for users, it would be beneficial to be able to base the object on on-premises or the cloud. We should be able to push policies based on a segregation or as a whole. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

The solution is stable and satisfies my use case. I rate stability an eight out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. 

My focus is limited and I have not needed technical support. 

We are replacing Cisco and our Forcepoint Proxy with the solution. Since we will be using the solution's proxy, it doesn't make sense to have two filtering instances. 

The setup is simple. 

We implemented the solution in-house. 

The solution is priced a bit higher than competitors and could be a bit more flexible for customers. I rate pricing a six out of ten. 

There are multiple platforms available that include XDR and the Proxy. 

The solution is very easy to use in comparison to the Forcepoint Proxy. 

Based on my limited use of the solution, I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We deploy Prisma acces for Cloud security and integrate with velo sdwan to bulid up a on-premise to cloud whole secuirty connection . We also provide both on-premises and cloud  solutions. Our customers focus on security rather than DLP.

Palo Alto integrates the whole policy into the platform and deploys all policies to every end device, making it easy to manage and deploy policies for IT departments.

Panorama integrates security management by allowing easy modification of policy by account, IP, or application. This flexibility helps IT departments securely manage Internet security.Especially the web broswer isolation feature that is call [PAB].

Palo Alto needs to improve deployment by making it easier to deploy an agent to a desktop. Currently, it's complex since the product cannot utilize the AD serving for deployment, which would be a desired improvement in the near future.

About 3 yrs.

Panorama can depoly on-premise, therefore is depend on the operator redundancy mechanism.Frankly speaking, Panorama is very stable.

Panorama is capable of managing complex network environments. Its scalability is rated nine out of ten.

I am satisfied with their support and would rate it nine out of ten.

We used to work with Fortinet products. However, our focus has shifted, though Fortinet products remain an alternative for our customers who are familiar with its platform.

The initial setup can be complicated, specifically when deploying to desktops using batch files.

Palo Alto Panorama might appear expensive to some enterprises, but its powerful platform justifies the cost.

We evaluate solutions like Fortinet, which has advantages in pricing and functionalities such as user-friendly deployment.

I would recommend this solution to customers, though it can be very expensive. As an alternative, Fortinet solutions are also recommended.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is essential for those adopting a centralized landing zone firewall approach as it provides a unified management point for enforcing security policies. It becomes particularly crucial in multicast strategies and cloud environments, streamlining configuration and monitoring across multiple firewalls.

Using Palo Alto Networks has brought numerous benefits to our organization. It effectively addresses security vulnerabilities, incorporates advanced AI technology, ensures reliability, and continually innovates with a demand-driven approach to security features.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its innovation and impressive capacity to handle network traffic efficiently.

A potential improvement for Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be a more competitive pricing structure.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for three years.

It is a fairly stable solution.

I would rate the scalability of the product as an eight out of ten. We have approximately 30 to 40 customers using it.

The technical support is good.

The setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is moderately complex. In my experience, the deployment of Palo Alto Networks Panorama involves considering accessibility, and if it's on-premises, it may face challenges like procurement delays. The cloud version tends to be smoother and more straightforward for deployment.

The pricing structure could use some improvement.

I highly recommend Palo Alto Networks Panorama. It is a mature, solid, and innovative technology. Overall, I would rate it as a ten out of ten.

Panorama is a management server that is used to manage the Palo Alto firewalls.

We have almost 20 firewalls in our environment managed by this particular server. Panorama is an appliance, it's not a firewall. It is a management server, which is used to manage or push the policies. If you want to install a policy on the firewall, or you want to allow legitimate traffic, then you leverage this management server.

It's helped with the centralization of policies and installation. It's helped us do everything in one place instead of one at a time. 

In Panorama, installing the policy, and pushing the policy, it's quite seamless. 

It is a centralized management tool. Instead of logging into each firewall and configuring it or deploying the policies, it's quite easy as everything is in one place. We can push the policy and install the policies centrally instead of individually on each firewall. 

In order to push a policy via Panorama, we need to ensure that the firewall is syncing with the management server. I have hardly found any post-upgrade issue with the Panorama management server or the Palo Alto firewall. They are never out of sync.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It's scalable.

The solution is stable. 

The inbuilt RAM is quite low. If you are increasing the number of firewalls and you want to get this managed via this management server, there are some performance issues. The cost of this product is more. However, the resources they have provided, the inbuilt resources, are less. 

The pricing is quite high.

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

It is a stable solution. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

We have approximately 20 firewalls, which is integrated with Panorama, and it's doing pretty good.

This solution is like the backbone of inbound and outbound services. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. 

In terms of scalability, it should be able to manage all the firewalls. That said, you need to consider capacity planning down the line for the number of resources, like the CPU memory, if it is low. How many resources are required to be increased to manage these number of firewalls is determined. Capacity planning definitely is required if you're looking for a scalable solution.

Right now, we have no plans to increase usage. We might not look at any increase until five or six years later. 

Technical support has been very good. 

Positive

Cisco does have this centralized management feature as well. They have an ASDM in the Cisco firewall, which is nothing more than a centralized management server. Even Nokia and Check Point have management servers.

Palo Alto is never out of sync with Panorama. However, I find I have issues with Check Point and syncing. We often need to troubleshoot in those scenarios. 

We have Fortinet firewalls. Fortinet is a market leader in terms of Gartner metrics. We have Check Point firewalls as well. That said, Palo Alto is more into the cyber security solution. Everyone is following the footprints of Palo Alto as they were the first to imagine the industry, provide the necessary cybersecurity solutions and next-generation firewalls, and innovate on everything.

The setup itself is very simple and straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

In terms of maintenance, in terms of security, we do require additional resources. Once the security infrastructure is compromised, it'll need a business outage. So we require additional resources in the firewall technology.

The deployment was handled in-house. 

We have definitely seen an ROI. 

When it comes to pricing, compared to the OTC and MRC values, it's really high. They are the market leaders and due to their monopoly, whatever they will demand, we have to pay.

I would rate it five out of five in terms of value for money, however.

I've looked at almost every other product over the last 15 years. However, Palo Alto offers the best cybersecurity solutions. 

Palo Alto definitely a market leader in terms of firewall technology. 

They have good features.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

We are doing the centralized network for the global base. We have several countries with different firewalls being used and we are also cataloging the log to keep data on that. When we're having some issues, we can track back the details via Palo Alto Networks.

Most firewalls are the same, however, it depends on the service. If they have a good service, that means they guarantee that our business does not have any impact. That is a very important part of business today.

Palo Alto is very user-friendly.

It's a stable solution

Technical support is quite helpful.

We can scale well.

The initial setup was complex.

The licensing costs are quite high.

I would like there to already be a log centralized for the things, however, I don't see any soft security operation center or something that can make it a regular report. When we need some GDPR policy, we just have a one-pack we deploy and tune by ourselves a little bit to suit our organization. We'd like to have something more standardized for this purpose. It would be more of a value-add. 

We'd like more log monitoring in general.

I've been using the solution for five years already.

While it was stable, the one thing that I am not sure about is the Cortex Advantage. Maybe we have to leave it again as the life cycle of the hardware is almost finished. We are looking for some other solutions as well.

We have the full-scale of the Panorama solution. We are using the Cortex, the XDR from Palo Alto, as well and link all of them together to go to the Cortex network intelligence. We can scale when we need to.

There are about 5,000 users on the solution right now. 

We are impressed with the Thailand technical team.

When we have some trouble or issues happen, they always are there to help us guide us to solve the issue, and sometimes they even escalate the case to the global team.

Positive

We have certain firewalls in AWS and in Azure as well.

We had a complex initial setup. It wasn't that simple to execute. We do have help with deployment, however. We have a deputy to help us to deploy but Palo Alto also supports us as well.

The deployment itself was quick. In two months we were up and running.

We only have two people on our end looking at maintenance. The company that handled deployment had four people and also Palo Alto has some specialists and engineers. They had two guys, the implementer had four and we had two more - we were eight people in total.

We have a vendor that helps us. They also take care of the maintenance. 

We haven't noted an ROI yet. We'd like to see some reporting on that.

It's an expensive solution.

We pay a yearly fee. It is just one fee and everything is covered under it, including support.

We're a customer and end-user.

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. We work with other firewall brands that are also quite impressive as well. 

I primarily use Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the global administration of firewalls and managing the GlobalProtect services. It is used for logging and standard firewall activity, and opening firewall rules. Additionally, it centralizes various tasks on the platform.

The main value of Palo Alto Networks Panorama lies in its ability to centralize management, similar to FortiManager. It provides a single dashboard for all firewalls, allowing centralized control over different feeder systems based on Palo Alto. It's a comprehensive solution for managing firewalls globally.

There is room for improvement in the graphical user interface (GUI), which is becoming outdated, especially the NAT section. However, it still meets expectations and works well for our needs.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for three years.

Stability is rated highly at nine out of ten.

Scalability depends on whether it's a hardware or virtual machine model, and I rate it at eight out of ten.

I rate technical support at seven out of ten. It depends on the case, with room for improvement in both quality and response time.

Neutral

In comparison, I prefer Panorama over FortiManager because Panorama includes all the modules needed for troubleshooting, unlike FortiAnalyzer. From an operational perspective, Panorama is better.

The initial setup for Panorama is simple.

Overall, I rate Panorama an eight out of ten and would recommend it to other users.

My clients use Palo Alto Networks Panorama for centralized management of multiple firewalls across various locations. It allows them to easily oversee and configure all their firewalls through a single interface, streamlining security management across their network infrastructure.

The most valuable aspect of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for me is the centralized management of multiple firewalls. It saves time, provides consolidated visibility into my network, and allows me to configure all firewalls from one web interface, eliminating the need to access each firewall separately.

In the future, it would be beneficial if Panorama could include a firewall assurance feature similar to Skybox. While each firewall has its policy optimizer, a consolidated policy optimizer in Panorama could further enhance firewall management and optimization.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for over ten years.

Panorama is stable.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable and can support up to 1,000 devices, making it suitable for various network sizes. In terms of clients, it is mainly used by larger customers with more than ten firewalls. Some smaller customers with six or eight firewalls may not opt for Panorama, but those with ten or more find it beneficial for centralized management.

I find Palo Alto Networks' technical support to be good, especially with premium support. The initial support level is handled by us, and if we encounter issues beyond our scope, Palo Alto's support team is efficient in resolving them. I would rate the support as a nine out of ten.

Positive

Installing Palo Alto Networks Panorama is easy, and connecting firewalls is a straightforward process. Deployment typically requires just one person, usually the firewall administrator. Maintenance is also easy, especially for those familiar with managing individual firewalls, and Panorama serves additional functions like log collection and setting up SD-WAN functionality, making it highly useful for networks with multiple firewalls.

In terms of return on investment, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is worthwhile, especially for larger networks with more than ten firewalls. The time saved and the consolidated view it provides investment pay off quickly, often within a couple of months.

In terms of pricing, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is moderate. It is very affordable when compared to more expensive firewalls. The license is yearly, and the price typically includes the initial license and support, with subsequent years requiring only twenty percent of the initial license cost for support. It is negotiable, and the overall cost depends on your network setup and the type of firewalls you are using.

Overall, I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama as an eight out of ten.