Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is used to manage the Palo Alto firewalls.

We are attracted to Palo Alto because it is stable. It is very simple to use.

When they bring anything to the market, it is really well done.

There could be more integrations with third parties.

I have been dealing with Palo Alto for more than ten years, and have been selling Palo Alto Networks Panorama since it was first released.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama's stability has never been an issue for me. It's fantastic.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a scalable product.

I have not contacted technical support.

We haven't had any escalation issues, which means they're doing a good job.

We are also selling SentinelOne.

From Palo Alto, we sell everything from firewalls to endpoint security.

I was not involved with the setup.

Licensing fees are paid yearly.

We are in EDR. We don't sell any products or any information for threat intelligence.

If they have Palo Alto products, and multiple sites, it's definitely something they would need.

It is difficult to give it a ten because there is always room for development. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten. 

We use it internally to manage the solutions that we provide to our customers. So, we use it to manage our own firewalls and Prisma Access. We also use it to manage managed firewalls. We can also resell it, but we don't tend to do too many panoramas.

We are using version 10.0.7, which is the latest one under version 10. We're not running 10.1 yet. We don't need to run that.

The entire ease of use is most valuable. If you're managing firewalls locally with PAN-OS, the look and feel of Panorama is the same. So, you don't have to relearn another product. If you're used to managing firewalls from Palo Alto, you can easily use Panorama to manage them. It looks and feels the same.

Our primary issue at the moment is to manage Prisma Access because we just switched over to using Prisma Access for our customers. My newest one is in North America. It is a great tool for that. The fact that you can push out your Prisma Access just dynamically and it changes into Prisma Access Cloud is fantastic.

It tends to move along fairly quickly in terms of features because it is a part of PAN-OS. We are waiting on one feature that's on the beta at the moment, but that's because we use Okta as our authentication.

Reporting might be an area to improve. It can provide reporting or some sort of graphical representation of your environment.

I have been using it for probably two years.

There are no reliability issues.

You can manage multiple environments, multiple firewalls, and multiple locations with it. So, it scales really well.

We have just a handful of admins. We have less than five of them.

I have not used their technical support.

We've always been Palo Alto. The founders of our company were ex-Palo Alto people, so it is always going to be Palo Alto.

I've been using it for two years, but I didn't actually deploy those instances at Panorama. When we recently moved to Azure, I actually deployed it in Azure, and I had no issues. So, I was a complete rookie in terms of deploying it because I'd never done it before. I did that with minimal assistance from Palo Alto or anybody. So, I would say it is easy to deploy in the cloud.

In terms of updates, PAN-OS releases come every month, six weeks, or so. You have to be running a higher or equal level of Panorama to the firewalls that you're managing. If you're keeping your firewall environments up to date, you also have to keep your Panorama up to date, and with that comes new features. You have to plan for firewall updates more than Panorama, which is just managing other environments. You can pretty much update Panorama whenever you want. There is no customer or firewall outage when you update Panorama. It is just the reboot time. You just download it, install it, and reboot it, and you're done. It takes less than 20 minutes.

We're a reseller, and we're an MSSP. So, we get some extreme discounts. 

It is easy if you're used to managing firewalls. Using Panorama to manage the firewalls is not rocket science. It is just another GUI or web UI.

Palo Alto is really good at innovation, adding new functions and features, and rolling those out on a regular basis. So, they're going in the right direction. As long as that keeps happening, they are good. They should just keep adding and improving. 

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of 10.

I worked for a system integrator, and some of our clients  asked us to manage their firewalls. They have a large number of sites all around the world. One of them has got 25 sites, and the other one has got 13 sites. So, we deployed Panorama in our DataCenter, and we managed the gateway for our customers with Panorama.

The management and the deployment features are most valuable. We can easily deploy and manage the devices. We can do fast deployments without moving from our office and by just providing a short description to the end-user about how to install the physical device.
With Panorama you are able to manage a large number of firewall and to simplify change and incident management process .
With Panorama, firewall rules may be  managed mixing preconfigured templates (common on all/some firewalls) and more specific rules
From Panorama Dashboard you have an immediate view about the status of all the firewall deployed. 

It is quite hard to understand the platform. It is not easy and user-friendly. You need some experience and the proper technincal training  to use Panorama without risks.
It is very complex, and you must know exactly what to do.
The bigger problem is that Panorama Dashboard Logic is quite different than PanOS firewall Dashboard.
The second problem is that you dont have wizards or template .You need to build your enviroment from zero on your own incurring in possibile configuration or logic errors.

I would like to have a more user-friendly and simple to use product .
For istance FortiManager is comparatively much more easier  to use and understand.
Palo Alto Firewall too are Really easier to manage than Panorama. 

Panorama Logging and reporting features are quite good ( like PaloAlto Firewall) but not the best on the market ( for istance Checkpoint SmartEvent is still far better) 

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is quite stable based on my experience. I did not have any big issues regarding the operating system.

It is quite easy to scale with Panorama. It is more for a medium or big enterprise. To manage an environment from Panorama, you must have people with high skills. Its cost is not suitable for a couple of gateways only.

We have three levels of Palo Alto support. I also have email support in the Italian language. They provide very good support levels.

I did not install Panorama from scratch. Palo Alto Gateway is quite easy to deploy and has a decent setup.

In terms of maintenance, it doesn't require too much effort. We usually check the best practices from their website. We update the Panorama server according to the best practices and the compatibility with the gateway.

Panorama price is quite high (comparing with other Firewall management suites) 

We have used it in the past for logging and reporting, but now we have another third-party product to manage the logs.

I would recommend Panorama for managing a large-sized or medium-sized network. To manage a center with a lot of devices or cloud services, Panorama is useful. 

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of 10.

We primarily use the product for security purposes. 

Security is the most valuable aspect of this solution. We find that the security level is very high.

The user interface is very good. it's easy to navigate and very user-friendly.

The installation process is very simple.  

The product is scalable. 

The stability has been good.

We have found the technical support to be very helpful.

The configuration could be a bit better. For us, it's a critical aspect. We've noticed Cisco may be better in this regard. 

We only recently upgraded the solution within the last six months.

The stability of Palo Alto is good. We don't have issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have found the solution to be scalable. Users can expand it if they need to.

Technical support from Palo Alto has been very good. We are quite satisfied with the service we receive. 

The installation process is not overly complex or difficult. It's very easy and quite straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with it.

We've looked at Cisco and noted that configurations seem to be easier using that product as opposed to Palo Alto. That said, Palo Alto is okay and still manageable. 

We are just customers and end-users.

I would rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We have been quite pleased with its capabilities.

At this time, I would definitely recommend the solution to other companies and organizations. 

We have M-100 Panorama, and we also have two from the 5000 series. They record all the traffic that goes through the two firewalls.

We are using the latest version. 

It is great that the records go back to 30 days. 

Palo Alto's user interface is much more user-friendly than other platforms.

There were a few bugs a couple of years into it. There was a big bug where it had trouble communicating with the two main boxes.

I have been using this solution for five or six years.

It once had trouble communicating with the two main boxes, but other than that, it has been pretty solid. We used their tech support to fix the issues.

It is straightforward to scale. Three people access it on a day-to-day basis.

Their tech support has always been great. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

We've been using this solution for as long as I can remember.

It is pretty straightforward. It is not very complex.

It is pretty reasonable as compared to other companies.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of 10.

It is a management tool, and we use it to manage many devices at many locations. 

Templates and the possibility to apply a configuration to many devices at the same time are the most valuable features. We are able to create templates, and we don't need to go to each firewall to make changes. We can make changes in Panorama, and it automatically applies those changes to all those firewalls on which we want to apply the changes. It provides centralized management.

It communicates with remote devices, and sometimes, there is a little bit of delay during its communication with remote devices. There should be real-time communication or updates from the manager to devices.

In Panorama and Palo Alto firewalls, I would like to have a traffic simulator. They have packet capture for troubleshooting, but it would help if they can provide a traffic simulator so that we can simulate the traffic and see the route the traffic is taking and get feedback about whether it is blocked or it is able to pass.

I have been using this solution for maybe a year and a half.

I don't have big deployments. It works and is stable for what I have, and I don't have concerns.

I don't have experience in big deployments. In terms of its users, our network engineers have access to it. We have less than 10 people.

I don't have any experience with their tech support.

Its main competitor is Cisco with the next-generation firewalls and FTD. They are managed by FMC, which is a little bit similar to Panorama and firewalls. There are some similarities, but there are also some different approaches. In general, they both are using the same standards. One major difference is that Palo Alto uses security zones, but Cisco doesn't have this feature, which makes Palo Alto better.

It is not so straightforward, but it is also not complex. It is acceptable.

I would advise others to completely evaluate the requirements and build properly with hierarchical templates. This will make it more scalable and manageable in the future.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama an eight out of 10.

We use this solution because it provides us with a consistent security profile no matter the location. Regardless of users, we use the same configuration. 

We also use Panorama for management. Currently, all of our users are working from home — this solution has helped us manage everything. 

Over the next four years, we are planning on moving all of our data centers onto the cloud.  

Before I joined this organization, they experienced some issues when trying to set up zone protection parameters. Last week I applied a zone protection profile; for each and every branch, I had to apply a zone protection profile or modify existing metrics — I needed to physically go to each branch. When we originally deployed Panorama, we were managing the firewalls individually. After implementing all those firewalls and changing all of the templates, it's really hard to modify them. 

You can't just modify them with a single click, you need to physically go to each individual branch and make the changes yourself — we can't directly seal all of the fireworks. This needs to be improved. 

With version 9.1, when configuring it, if something goes wrong, then it reverts back to your original settings automatically. This is a nice feature but it's not available on the standard firewalls. If we didn't have Panorama and I was setting up some remote Palo Alto firewalls, after implementing my configurations, if I were to lose the configurations then I would lose firewall access. This isn't the case with other firewalls like Cisco and Juniper SRX where you can just put in a reminder in the last 10 minutes. 

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the past five years.

Besides the odd bug, Panorama is stable. From a management point of view, it's good. Even though we now have 25 firewalls, with a single click, we can add and submit a request. With a single click, we can apply changes to all 25 firewalls. Upgrading our remote locations, the firewalls, logs, and the reporting is all very easy. We can easily add more power and stability, it's nice.

GlobalProtect is a great extension that you can add on. If something goes wrong with our cloud solution, then it will automatically fall back to our local physical firewalls across the globe. We have four different locations that GlobalProtect automatically connects to. At the moment, our company is expanding so we are adding more clients. 

The technical support is pretty good. The best part about Palo Alto is that you can find answers with a simple Google search. Compared to other vendors, all of their technical data is online — for all of their solutions. Still, sometimes we prefer to use support. Sometimes it takes time as their technical team has to regenerate our issues in their lab, etc. 

The initial setup can be complex. As I mentioned before, making modifications is very difficult. Before implementing, you need to plan carefully.

Our engineer made some mistakes when he was setting it up; we still experience some complications due to that as everything is already in place and we can't change it. 

Licenses are available on a one to three-year basis. If you go for a one-year license, you won't get much of a discount. We have a three-year license for all of our firewalls. Currently, we have 25 firewall licenses.

Currently, we have around 20 TB of data. We are in the process of upgrading our licenses because we are adding more and more files.

The price of the licenses could be lower. Still, because we have Panorama with 25 firewalls, Palo Alto gives us a good discount. 

I would definitely recommend Panorama to others. Compared to all of the other firewall vendors, Palo Alto is very secure. Personally, I'd say it's the best firewall vendor on the market. When combined with WildFire, it's highly secure; just make sure you configure it properly as there are a lot of viruses out there. 

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give Panorama a rating of nine. 

We used Panorama to control all the other modules from Palo Alto and to create the rules.

The threat prevention and layer seven security features were the most used and important for us. All operations are quite good in this solution.

We found a vulnerability where when we have a low flow, like 2.7K, it is not getting fired by the threat prevention. That's something important to improve on. They should have a proxy or some solution to solve the issue.

We also found some issues around decrypting the flow. When we have more flow than expected to decrypt, the performance goes down.

I have used this solution for one year. 

Its stability is fine. It supports the only point used here to decrypt the flows. When we have the right configuration, it has good stability.

We didn't scale up the solution because it requires a load balancer, which is not there. We have around 40,000 users.

They should have a local technical team. I would rate them a seven out of ten.

It wasn't easy, but it also wasn't very difficult. I would say it was medium. The deployment took around three months.

In order to have the right security level, you need to understand how decryption works or is used in Palo Alto. We had to clarify some points with them related to how decryption works.

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

Our firewall uses IPS and other features. We have some firewall rules using the IPS feature. For the VPN users using the MFA authentication protocol, we are using the SAML protocol.

The application ID or App-ID feature is a good feature for us. We are also using IPS and content inspection features. The firewall can inspect the packages that are passing through my network.

It should have more connection with Threat Intelligence Cloud. They can also include features related to SecOps and automation API.

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

It is awesome in terms of stability.

In terms of scalability, it is complicated because you have to scale up. Its scalability could be better. It would be great if you could scale out by integrating another node, and you are good to go. 

Currently, you have to buy new hardware with more power in terms of CPU and memory. You cannot simply increase the nodes in a cluster. In the last five months, we had to acquire new hardware because we are facing some higher usage in the Palo Alto hardware. We have about 15,000 users.

They provide good support. I would rate them an eight out of ten. 

They can increase the SOA time. When dealing with your case, sometimes, they take time. In the queue, you need to pass through one analyst and then go to the next level, which takes some time.

It was quite straightforward. In terms of technology, it was okay. As our environment is quite complicated, we had to deal with several phases of the implementation because we don't have only one appliance installed. We have implemented four Palo Altos. That's why it took some time, but it was just because of the complexity of our environment, not because of the solution itself. The whole project took one year.

We did some POCs to understand this solution. We had a lot of discussions in terms of the best way to implement this solution in our environment. It took the effort that this kind of solution normally takes.

It is not a cheap solution.

I would advise studying and understanding the best factors for implementing Palo Alto Networks Panorama and creating a roadmap to use all the features because it is not a cheap solution. Understand the possible ways to implement Palo Alto Networks Panorama and create a roadmap that implements all the features.

Palo Alto is constantly improving its solutions. They have been doing a great job and putting a great effort into their products. I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a nine out of ten. We are satisfied with the solution.

We primarily use the solution for automation purposes and for security.

The underlying technology is very good, considering that we are moving to a work-from-home environment.

Panorama is a straightforward tool. Palo Alto is comparative to other firewalls. Some firewall tools are more user friendly, and, from a technical perspective, it is very user friendly as well. It's not like Check Point. We use a setup for offshore development centers. For all those ODCs, we usually use a Palo Alto device. We have few perimeter firewalls which are Palo Alto but for the perimeter predominantly we use Check Point.

You don't need an overly experienced workforce to handle Palo Alto. It's very easy to use.

The solution if extremely flexible and scalable.

There are too many OS upgrades. We've had six new versions in the past six months. Even if they are updating it to fix bugs, it's hard to keep pace with the change when you have 800 or more Palo Alto devices that you now need to update and upgrade.

We try to follow version minus one or two for security reasons. To keep pace with the changes, it takes us nearly six months as we have to check with the business, arrange downtime, and count and cover all devices.

These upgrades aren't just little fixes either. Whenever there is a new release, it requires an OS upgrade. It would be nice if there was some automation on the upgrades of the devices.

They need to do less bug-related releases and create versions that are stable for at least six months at a time. I don't find this issue in other solutions like Cisco, Check Point, FortiGate, or others. Those just provide a patch if there is a bug and we don't have to worry about downtime.

We've been using the solution for close to seven years at this point. It's definitely been about six years.

The solution is very, very stable. There aren't too many issues on it once you get it up and running. We consider it reliable.

The solution is very scalable. If a company needs to expand its services, it can do so rather easily.

We have different businesses running inside the organization. We have close to 800 devices, so it means about 800 different projects are using those devices. Each project has a firewall, so most of these, 80%, are on Palo Alto.

We use Check Point as well, however, we don't really like it as much. It's not as user friendly.

Prior to this solution, we were using the ASA products and then Check Point. Check Point is a little complicated. I can use Check Point on my perimeter firewall, but not on my overseas businesses. That's what makes Palo Alto is more user friendly. I can use the GUI to do everything due to the fact that I don't need a skilled person to work on the Palo Alto. On Check Point, I have to go to CLA and do all the changes. 

 It's easy to upgrade or to do anything with the Palo Alto. Technically it's quite sound. It's dynamic, scalable, and there's a lot of things that can be done easily. Plus, I don't need an extremely experienced person to work on Palo Alto. Anybody with two or three years of experience can easily work on a Palo Alto device.

The initial setup is not complex. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment is easy and uncomplicated. It takes about an hour or so, if not less than an hour. It's pretty quick.

However, we have 800 or more devices. It takes about six months to deploy everything, especially if I have to do everything manually.

We have eight to ten people who manage deployment and maintenance.

We haven't used an integrator or reseller. We handled the implementation ourselves in-house.

In terms of licensing for Panorama and Palo Alto products, we have only the DMC cost and we are billed every year.

It's not overly expensive. It is comparatively okay if you look at other devices. Compared to the top three devices, pricing is okay due to the fact that you have multiple vendors who are selling firewalls and competing with each other for the same clients. 

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We have multiple variants of the solution's model. Currently, we are using 8.1.15-H. We also have some virtual firewalls that are recently in Tokyo. We are using close to around 800+ Palo Alto firewalls. 

We're currently developing our virtual firewalls and have them in different locations. 

It is not just Palo Alto. We have other devices as well, so we have close to around 1300 plus firewall devices.

I would recommend the solution to others.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If you need a perimeter type of device, Check Point may be a better option. However, for my businesses, I would choose Palo Alto due to its scalability and user-friendliness. It also has great security features. That said, if it didn't release so many new updates, I would rate it higher, simply due to the fact that so many upgrades requires a lot of work on our part.