Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

We use Palo Alto firewalls, for our perimeter security. It is our perimeter security product, which we use as our perimeter security firewall. As a firewall should, protect us and our organization at the perimeter.

It's an excellent product. It's doing its job, and we like it. The ease of use is quite nice. Everything about the reporting and everything about Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good.

Everyone, I suppose, would like the price to be improved. Price is always a good thing to change.

There is always room for improvement in anything. But I couldn't really comment on that off the top of my head.

In terms of updates, I believe everything is in order. That is not an issue for me.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for five months.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 100 percent stable. We have it running in HA status, obviously, for failover, but It's extremely stable. There are no complaints.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable.

We have a large organization. We are a retail company, with approximately 4000 users who are protected by this firewall.

I have never contacted technical support personally. We do outsource our support to another company. When there are issues, they are responsible for resolving them.

We use their product called, Cortex XDR.

We use an onboard, a custom CRM platform that we created in-house. At the moment, we do not use a commercially available one.

I have been with my current company for five months. And we were using checkpoints as our perimeter security when I first joined, and we moved to the Palo Alto Panorama platform. And it's a fantastic product; we love it. As an organization, it has been very well written.

I wasn't involved in the installation because, as I previously stated, I just started working for my current organization. 

I wasn't directly involved in the transition, but it went smoothly.

I couldn't comment on price as I am not really involved in the commercial side of the business.

I am not aware of the licensing fees.

I am aware of XSOAR, but we haven't had any dealing with it yet. We are on a journey to potentially onboard that within our environment. But, at this point, we don't have, the budget for it.

It's doing its job for us. Since we cut it out, from Checkpoint to Palo Alto, everything has improved noticeably. I recommend it.

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

Palo Alto Networks Panorama can be used for managing all your files at once. Its primary use case is that it's a centralized management system for firewalls. For example: we have a company with four different sites, and each one of those sites has two Palo Alto networks in there, so rather than do one integration, then replicate it four times, what we do is we plug it all into Palo Alto Networks Panorama and make the change once, and it pushes out to all the firewalls, regardless of where those are located.

What I find brilliant in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is that you can create variables. The template stack function of the system is also valuable. You can create one profile for several firewalls, and I find that really, really cool. If there's a file on the network that needs to have an address arrangement, you can just import it similar to how you do a CSV import. It's a solid product and it does what it's supposed to do.

The ease of use of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is an area for improvement, because it's not very easy to use. The downside with the system is that you need a lot of comprehension to understand what it is. There are also risks associated with making a change, e.g. you can accidentally break your network which knocks off the firewall, and then you can't get back on again. If you know what you're doing, e.g. if you're a specialist, then there won't be any problems, in general.

It's important to gain an understanding of Palo Alto Networks Panorama, or the concept, before you start. It works like Palo Alto, but it doesn't at the same time, because you have templates, and the templates have to be applied before your variables, and then those variables directly affect your objects. It's important to understand how it works. I wish they could make it easier, and a bit more intuitive, but if you're doing the training, and you're properly in the system, then it will make sense the way it's explained to you, otherwise, it'll be hard to make sense of it.

It could be difficult to get to the stage you want to be on with this system. It's similar to a different language, and it's so hard to just do it on your own, but if you are in the culture and you're speaking to other people, then it becomes easier because you're doing it. That's the learning curve right there, e.g. if you've never done it before, you'll sit and look around saying: "What is this? I don't understand." If you're doing the training, and you're more involved in the product, or even if you speak to specialists, they will be able to help you, then you start to learning it and what it can do.

I've been dealing with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for four years now.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is very, very scalable. The way the system works is that you have clustering, so you can have all these machines connect to each other in stacks. It's a completely scalable system.

Technical support for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good. I'm giving them a score of four out of five.

The setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is quite difficult, because you're essentially building this one machine, then you have to create all the log ins, then once you've done that, you start registering your files, but you have to do an ingestion on them. You have to bring the file all in, and then it takes the config then puts the config back out again, but that config will then be a "protected config", so if I was logging onto that machine locally, I can't change that file.

The setup is quite easy just to build the machine, but to get it to work is quite difficult.

I've been dealing with version 10.0 of Palo Alto Networks Panorama. I'm a reseller of this solution.

One person could do the deployment and maintenance for Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but what we do in our office is: we have a buddy system. If there's a change that needs to be made, e.g. if someone does the work, someone verifies it, and then catches any problems there, because if you're managing several firewalls, one more change might break all of them. That's the risk that you're in.

My advice to others who are planning to implement Palo Alto Networks Panorama is to look at the use case, e.g. if you have two firewalls, or if you have several firewalls across the country, it's best to get a specialist in to help you deploy it. For a regular IT guy who works in a company managing the server, etc., it'll be such a hard learning curve to go through. Try and learn it yourself if you can, but if not, always defer to a specialist.

I'm rating Palo Alto Networks Panorama seven out of ten, just because it's quite difficult.

I use the firewall to protect my entire enterprise network. 

I like the quality of this product, and it performs. It's the best solution in the IT business. 

I would improve the management. I need to view charts and traffic statistics, but the management console doesn't share that information with me.

I would also improve the integration with other solutions. 

I have been a partner of this solution for five years.

The stability of the solution is good. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The technical support is very good. We contact them for support with the solution or if we have problems in the entire network. I would rate the technical support as an eight out of ten. 

Positive

My IT team handled the setup and it was very easy because they have the needed skills. We use three people for deployment and maintenance: one engineer and two technicians. 

I would recommend that new users study the product. I think people should use it because it is very easy to understand.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. 

We are using this solution to manage our two perimeter devices. We have two firewall setups; one perimeter and one internal firewall and we have two different Panorama for managing both set of firewall.

The most valuable features of this solution are that its look & feel is exactly same as normal firewall, easy to explorer all of its features, also it has the Log Collector mode. This mode allows us to store our logs for two years in the solution itself. 

There is a need to improve the upgrade process. When we are upgrading the solution we are facing some issues with Elasticsearch services. Every time we upgrade it takes a long time to become stable.

In an upcoming release, I recommend having policy segmentation because that will help Panorama. There is no policy segmentation as you would find in Check Point. 

I have been using this solution for two years.

The stability needs some improvement during some operations.

The solution is scalable. We have the solution on a VM and we only need to increase our storage to scale. One of my clients is a bank and they have approximately 2,000 employees using the solution.

We are using this solution on a daily basis. The operation team is using it for log search, deploying policies, and a few other operations. I do not think we need a second instance of this solution running because security features are working with the firewall and not on Panorama.

The technical support is very good. Whenever we face an issue the technical support team helps a lot.

In the initial setup in our case, we are using the single setup firewall with panorama. the usual templates, stacks, and devices group is works good with multiple firewalls. But with single firewall setup This whole process has become very complicated and very confusing. There should be some provision for a single setup firewall to avoid the template stacks and templates. 

The solution is priced well and there is a license for this solution that we pay annually for. 

I previously evaluated Check Point and Fortinet. Check Point security management server is altogether a different GUI & cannot work without SMS and Fortinet is also different because FortiAnalyzer is only used for log collection.

This solution features I would recommend over Fortinet and Check Point because it has the same look as a firewall and there is no more difference between firewall and Panorama. We can deploy policy & other configurations without panorama as well. 

I would advise those wanting to implement this solution that is pretty straightforward, and Palo Alto has written very detailed documentation on their website. If you go through that it is very easy to deploy. You will not run into any issues if you follow the documentation.

I recommend this solution to others.

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

We mainly use this solution to centralize our management.

What I really like about this program, is the easy integration of the firewalls and the core management interface, which is almost exactly the same as the single firewall.

I think the multitenancy of this solution can be improved. I would also like to see better management task automation for the trial environment. That is missing in this solution.

In the next version, I would like to have more integration with the cloud and with the services delivered by Palo Alto. It isn't very task integrated at this stage. I would also like more dashboard management. 

The solution is absolutely stable.

I believe the solution is scalable, because it is able to manage more than 3000 devices for our company without any issues.

I am impressed by the customer service. The Palo Alto software is a good, fast and it is easy and quick to find a solution.

The initial setup was very easy and deployment took about four hours.

If you compare the price of this solution to other management solutions, it is relatively low. You only pay for the license and there are no additional costs.

My advice to others who are looking into implementing it, I would say that the solution is practically completely perfect. It gets a ten out of ten rating from me. 

We are using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for a firewall between the DMZ and the enterprise.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is its ease of use.

The solution can improve by providing unique reports in relation to the function of which you choose the firewall to do.

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

We have used the solution for a long time and it has been operating steadily. We have not had issues.

I rate the scalability of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of ten. We are using the solution in enterprise companies. There are approximately 3,000 to 4,000 people using the solution.

We used the support for some hardware inquiries and for some issues. They were about to resolve the issues.

The initial setup of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is simple. The implementation is done in stages. The first stage, takes approximately three to four hours.

We have our own in-house team that does the implementation.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is expensive.

If the use case fits the solution then it will work very well.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama eight out of ten.

We use the solution for border-leaf access.

The solution's utilization of network ports makes things as complex as possible. 

The pricing could be better. 

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for 10 years.

On the one or two occasions that I had to make use of technical support, I felt it to be pretty good. 

I cannot comment on the initial setup, as I was not involved with it. 

The pricing could be lower.

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

We primarily use the solution in order to protect our perimeter. It's used for security purposes.

The product is set up so that we can handle more than one firewall. We can handle a bunch all in one application. It makes it simpler that everything is more centralized.

The firewall rules and policies are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

The interface and dashboard are quite good. 

We haven't had any issues with the management of the solution.

The product offers good technical support and documentation.

We haven't had issues with scalability or performance. It's been very stable over the years.

I don't recall the initial setup giving us any troubles.

I haven't come across any issues with the product. Overall, it's been very positive.

I don't recall missing any features. It's a fairly complete solution.

The product could offer more integration with other solutions.

I've been dealing with the solution for five or six years at this point. It's been a while. It's not new to our company.

The solution is quite stable. There are no glitches or bugs. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is reliable.

We are currently in a hardware upgrade and I hope that it's very seamless. It is scalable; we checked the hardware and I do not expect to upgrade again due to the current hardware performance being really good.

We've connected with technical support a few times. It was normal, much like our experience with other vendors. They are average and provide the support we require. We are satisfied so far with their level of attention.

I also have experience with various firewalls, such as Checkpoint, Palo Alto, and Cisco.

The initial setup was not handled by myself. It was handled by a colleague. However, I do not recall them struggling with the implementation. The setup seemed to be quite straightforward. It's not overly complex, from what I witnessed.

My colleague handled the implementation.

I can't directly speak to the price of the solution. It's not an aspect of the solution I handle.

We are just customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with the organization.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's been very useful for our organization and we've been quite happy with its capabilities.

It is a next-generation firewall, and therefore you can use it for a lot of requirements, and lots of solutions. I would highly recommend it.