Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

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 have firewalls in different locations and we want to manage them centrally to see all the information available. The best way to do this is by using this solution, we are able to monitor, manage, and have visibility of the networks.

The most valuable aspect of this solution is the ability to manage our devices centrally. Additionally, we can monitor the workforce connections, receive reports, and use the backup feature.

There are times when we are backing up a device centrally, we do not get a full backup. We are able to do a full backup of all the devices but when we attempt to backup a single device, it only does the backup of a few presets and not the full configuration.

In the future, they could improve by providing better management of the devices, such as bandwidth. 

I have been using the solution within the last 12 months.

The stability is good.

The solution is scalable. You are able to go through this solution and download from the internet upgrades to push them to the certain devices that need it.

The technical support is good. I receive a resolution from the technical support whenever I have dealt with them.

We sometimes have difficulty with the deployment configuration.

The solution requires a license and the price is higher than competitors. It would be better for them to decrease the price or maximize the discount.

I would recommend this solution to others if you have multiple sites and you want to manage them centrally.

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

Our primary use case is to have a centralized console for gateways.

It has shared profiles for all gateways. If I do not have Panorama, I need to create a separate profile for each and every gateway by logging into that particular gateway, but with Panorama, I can create a shared profile and just push it down to each and every gateway connected to it.

In our version, there is no feature to transfer or upload a database of third-party vulnerabilities or signatures so that Panorama can convert them into its own database. This kind of feature might already have come in version 10.

I have been using this solution for around four years.

As of now, I am not seeing any limitation in terms of technicality, deployment, and functionality. In terms of licensing, depending on the number of gateways or serial numbers, I need to purchase the license, which is not really a limitation.

They are good. Whenever there are some issues or bugs and we are not able to trace them out, we reach out to them. They provide the required support.

It was straightforward. The gateway integration with Panorama was also a pretty straightforward configuration for us. 

We deployed it site-wise. For each HAPS, it took us around two hours to take an existing production gateway behind Panorama.

I would recommend this solution to others. It is a good solution. If any environment has multiple gateways, such as 50 or 100 gateways, it is good to have Panorama. If you have only one or two gateways of Palo Alto, you can easily manage them individually without having Panorama.

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

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. 

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.

This product is part of our overall security solution.

The most valuable feature is the Threat Intelligence.

It is easy to use.

I would like to have better analytics.

The network traffic analysis (NTA) is something that you can add on to get more insight from the traffic passing through the firewall, and it should be included.

We have been working with Panorama for at least five to six years.

Palo Alto Panorama is a stable product.

We did not have any challenges with respect to scalability.

Our team has managed properly so we have not often needed to contact technical support. I would say that they are okay, as we have not had any problems with them.

We are currently using several different firewalls. There is Check Point, Fortinet, Juniper, and Palo Alto. Check Point was the first one that we used.

The initial setup is straightforward and it took a couple of weeks to deploy.

Our in-house team handled the deployment and is responsible for maintenance.

Palo Alto is expensive and there are many cheaper firewalls, but they do not work as well.

My advice to anybody who is looking at this solution is that it is easy and straightforward to use, although more difficult than some to deploy. It is expensive but if you can afford it, then it's worth it.

I would rate this solution an eight 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.