Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

Panorama is one centralized management server through which all our devices are protected. It's a security management tool.

One of the most valuable aspects for us is the fact that all of the policy management and configuration management is able to happen right from the centralized management. This makes everything much easier.

The initial setup is pretty simple.

The solution, especially the latest versions, is very stable.

The product can scale well.

The customer support needs to be better. Sometimes we need to wait for hours before getting someone from the product team or someone from the Palo Alto customer support to get on a call if we are facing some issue. They could reduce the wait times.

I've been using Palo Alto for about a year and a half.

The solution is quite stable. The more high-end devices you take, the more stability. If you're using a little old model of firewalls, then there are issues with regard to stability. In such cases, Palo Alto would likely recommend you upgrade to the latest hardware. The latest hardware is really very stable.

The solution is quite scalable. 

Technical support is quite slow. They are not quick to respond.

The initial setup is easy. It is not that complex. There are articles and documentation, readily available on the Palo Alto website, the Palo Alto Portal, which can help you figure out how to configure the device.

Our deployment strategy for any new customer is to directly implement it in a testing phase. In a testing phase, we try to see if all the requirements that the customer wants to see if we will be facing any challenges. We want to initially try and replicate that in a lab scenario. That way, if there are any issues, we can get back to the team at Palo Alto and ask them questions. If it works, then the customer goes into production.

We don't have any dedicated person for maintaining anything. The antivirus, everything, can be directly, automatically updated on the firewall. That is not an issue. On top of that, if a particular device is getting into trouble then we get the NMS alerts for that device. In such scenarios, once we have a device failure at a particular site, we can have that device replaced. We can open a case with the vendor and once we give them a particular serial number or the VM instance, we can initiate an RML to replace that device with a new device. It takes a couple of days for that to happen.

We have another team that handles licensing. In operations, we do not have any visibility with regard to cost.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities.

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 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.

Panorama is very easy, easy to administrate, and easy to control.

It's difficult to implement. 

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

Palo Alto is very stable and is a great global solution.

There are more than 5,000 users in my company.

I would rate their support a ten out of ten. 

I would recommend this solution. 

I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

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.

We are dealing with Palo Alto Networks as a firewall.

Panorama provides management functionalities.

Integration between Panorama and the Edge Firewall has a lot of issues, like different configuration assets, configuration object templates, lack of flexibility, and not a good browser. It needs improvement in saving and synchronization.

We have been dealing with Panorama for one year.

There is no issue about performance. However, keeping the communication between Panorama and the Edge Firewall is a big issue if there is a different configuration version between both Panorama and Firewall.

We are not working over a complex network, but Panorama manages about six to eight firewalls. We may face a lot of issues when scaling up.

The first layer of support is not very good. The second layer is better.

Neutral

We switched from a different solution.

Panorama has a lot of issues accessing and configuring the firewall or deploying the firewall from Panorama. I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a firewall manager for network security, such as deployment, configuration, and controls.

The solution is suitable for all sized businesses.

The alerts in Palo Alto Networks Panorama could improve by integration with other systems, such as a forwarding trigger system. For example, if a customer has their own system it would be helpful to have the alarms integrated. 

In the future, when doing an update all solutions should be updated at once. For example, if many different solutions are being managed by Palo Alto Networks Panorama the updates can be done for all firewalls, such as EDR and XDR.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for approximately seven years.

I rate the stability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of ten.

It does not support all the solutions. However, it can scale easily.

The solution is suitable for all sized businesses.

I rate the scalability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a five out of ten.

The support could improve from the vendor. There should be standards across all solutions.

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is simple.

We do the deployment of the solution.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is high. There is a pay-per-use model.

I rate the price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a five out of ten.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of ten.

My primary use of Panorama is as a management unit, including firewall and log management.

The most valuable feature is that the management unit is centralized, so you can manage different regions from one place.

An area for improvement would be the connectivity, which sometimes means logs can be slow to display.

Panorama's stability is very good.

This solution is scalable.

The technical support is very good.

The initial setup isn't very complex, it's user-friendly. The deployment time depends on your capacity planning - how many firewalls will be managed and how many logs or discs you require.

When implementing, make sure someone involved has a good technical understanding of the product and how it will work. I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.