Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

Our primary use case of this solution is to have as a management tool for firewalls.

The interface is very easy to use. You can do most jobs from one single console.

The general customer feedback is when saving the configuration, it takes a long time. That needs to be fixed. The troubleshooting, the debugging part is also a little bit of a pain. It's not user-friendly on the interface to do our debugging when comparing it with other firewalls, like Forcepoint.

It would be nice to have a real-time traffic monitoring console similar to Forcepoint firewalls where you can see in real-time instead of having to keep on refreshing, or maybe a command on the console where you are able to see the traffic. 

The solution needs to work on speeding up the committing time. 

The solution is stable.

The solution is very scalable. If you have a large enterprise network, where you have 30 or 40 firewalls, you can see everything and you're able to administer all the firewalls on one single console. We typically install the solution for medium-sized to enterprise-level businesses.

We're not fully satisfied with technical support. Sometimes it's hard to get in touch with them. In regards to the first level of support engineers, it could be nice to know that they had more expert experience on the device so they can immediately resolve issues. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

I would recommend the solution. I find Palo Alto is the easiest product to deploy.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

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 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.

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. 

The solution is used for VPN, and Firewall protection.

I find the portal, and the filter function to be the most valuable features. I found it easy to learn how to pull information from the logs.

I would like to see more real-world testing before updates and patches are released in the live environment. The last VPN update that was released caused a problem that kicked users out. I would also like to see better documentation. The current documentation is not detailed enough.

I have been using the solution for a month and our organization has been using the solution for about four years.

The solution for the most part appears to be stable. I haven't had any major concerns.

The implementation was through a vendor.

Although I don't have direct knowledge of the setup cost I believe it is mid-range. There is also an additional cost for the VPN service.

I would rate the solution a six out of ten.

I was not part of the initial setup so I don't know how straightforward it was. 

The solution is used across six businesses for both the service and the workstations.

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.

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.

Our primary use case of this solution is jack monitoring and file management. 

The solution improves my management abilities by simplifying the implementation of policies for all my branches. 

What I like most about this solution is that it allows me to push multiple policies on multiple followers at the same time. For instance, I can work on a policy and it gets submitted on more than one file. It is a good feature for me to have, because I have many branches, so it gives me the ability to implement more than one policy, or to implement one policy on multiple files. I like the ease of management for the policies in the all files.

I have had some leakage issues before, but it was solved. I would, however like to see better integration with other products.

To be honest, the stability is really good, but perhaps it is from the Amazon Web Services (AWS). I haven't tried it on VMware yet, because I use Tekfy as a platform. The implementation on AWS made my life very easy. There was a template for this program on AWS, so I only needed to install my license and then it implemented Panorama.

The minimum license is for 25 users, so up until now, I didn't need to scale. We currently have five or six users who work on the program daily, and most of them are in the security division. One person is using Panorama to check for the logs from the files, and then we have a security consultant. We have one or two staff responsible for maintenance. 

We used three people for deployment, as we were already using some of them for the branches, creating a VPN between AWS and to create firewalls to ensure that everything was working fast. 

The technical support is good, but it can be better. I will rate the customer service eight out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward because we used a consultant of the company to do the installment. They did a good job with it.

My implementation strategy was to install Palo Alto Networks Panorama first, and then implement and integrate it with all my other files. It took us about two weeks to deploy the program.

We looked at FireMon, but FireMon was more expensive, and the main requirement for FireMon is to manage more than one file from different vendors. We didn't need it.

I will recommend this solution to others because it is a good solution, but only if you are using multiple files and not only two or three files. You should have at least five files for this solution to be right for you. I rate this product an eight out of ten. Easier implementation with other solutions will increase my rating.

In the future, I would like to see additional features being able to install firewalls using remote sites and the ability to do initial configuration using Panorama. I would like this initial configuration to be copied on USP and have the firewalls configured to connect to the Panorama. 

I would, therefore, like to see easier configuration and implementation in the next version.