Palo Alto Networks VM-Series Reviews

We use this product to secure our entire network, for ZTNA structure, and for VPN purposes, allowing access to our servers behind the firewall.

Using this product has increased our security and has given us much better results in terms of security scans.

Palo Alto embeds machine learning into the core of the firewall to provide online real-time attack prevention, and I would rate that capability an 8 out of 10. It's definitely effective in terms of securing our network against threats that are able to evolve and morph rapidly.

This solution provides a unified platform that natively integrates all of the security capabilities, although we are not using parts of it. For example, we don't use the configuration tools like Panorama.

The most valuable feature is the CLI.

We have the firewall configured for zero-day signatures, which is very important to us. We must be HIPAA and PCI compliant, which means that we need those signatures immediately.

There is no noticeable trade-off between security and network performance. In fact, so far, we've not seen any negative network performance with it. We're very impressed in that regard.

The web interface, especially when committing changes, remains a bit slower than I would like, but it has improved over the years. Reboots for the VM series do take longer than I would have expected. 

I have been working with the Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for almost 5 years.

This product is very stable. We have had zero problems with stability.

The scalability is fantastic. We're using the lowest-end product right now, and I don't foresee when we'll have to upgrade. We have a long way where we can continue to scale up.

We currently have multiple people that use it for VPN purposes, to access our servers behind the firewall. It is not used nearly as extensively as it should be. However, in the future we will start flowing all of our internet traffic through it.

We're all working remotely, and we're going to be connecting through the firewall. This means that our traffic is going to greatly increase, meaning that our usage will also increase. We'll also be using many more of the features.

The technical support from Palo Alto is good, overall. However, their response times could be a little quicker.

We have not really had any big complaints with the technical support and I would rate them a seven out of ten.

Prior to using Palo Alto, we were using an on-premises solution by Juniper. When we switched from onsite to the cloud, we changed products.

We made the switch because Juniper became unbearable regarding complexity and performance. It was getting very bad; we couldn't manage it well, and the performance was quite poor. 

The initial setup can be quite complex. There is a steep learning curve and we failed at it a few times before we were able to put a production machine into place.

Our final deployment took between three and four hours.

Our in-house team was responsible for the deployment.

We have absolutely seen a return on our investment. We are definitely more secure. With the features that are in Palo Alto, we do not have to worry about people busting into our network. Even just out of the box, with the base features, it's very solid. The default configurations are quite secure.

Our return on investment comes from the fact that no longer need to spend hours monitoring our network the way we did before. We've saved man hours and we've saved stress. I am unable put a monetary value to that, but that would be the return.

This is not the cheapest firewall but it's not the most expensive of the options on the market.

The new licensing structure is a little difficult to understand at first, but with the right thought put into it, would like save some money. 

Beyond Palo Alto, we evaluated two or three other products. Two of them that I can recall are Fortinet and the Microsoft Azure Firewall.

We did some extensive reviews and some extensive testing and what we found is that for the price, Palo Alto gave us the best options. It had the best set of security features. It wasn't the cheapest product but it was the best solution that fit our requirements.

We have not yet implemented the DNS security features but we will in the future. 

If one of my colleagues at another company were to say that they were just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall, I would suggest that they be careful. Palo Alto has a great balance. It's not super expensive compared to other options on the market, and it's quite quick when it comes to throughput and performance.

In summary, this is a good product but I do suggest that people shop around a little bit.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The most effective features for threat prevention are application-based prevention and WildFire. These features cover various threats, such as ransomware, malware, etc. They provide real-time visibility. By applying appropriate policies, threats can be blocked.

The solution needs to improve its visibility. It's not straightforward to use. Understanding the policies, authorizations, and initializing features requires careful review. The product needs to offer proper training. 

I have been working with the product for three to four months. 

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series' stability as ten out of ten. 

The main issue with the tool's support is the delayed response time, ranging from one to two hours. This delay can impact customers who are waiting for support. Additionally, partners may become busy. 

Positive

The tool's improvement in cloud security posture depends on the features used and the licenses purchased. Different suites are available, such as Professional, Core, and Enterprise, each offering various features for endpoint.

Competitors such as Fortinet and Check Point also offer similar features, but I don't know much about their offerings. However, Palo Alto Network VM-Series stands out with its application deployment capability, iOS zone protection, and features like application ID, user ID, and device ID identification. These features enable policy application and on-premises protection, which may not be available in competing solutions.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. 

We use the product on our Azure network firewalls. 

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is a complex product to work with. 

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is stable. 

I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten. We have 100 users for the product. 

We encountered quality issues over support. 

Neutral

The tool's deployment is simple. 

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is an expensive product but the best one in the market. 

I rate the product a ten out of ten. 

We use Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for our company's customers, especially those who use Azure Firewall to secure their environment but still want a third-party firewall from companies like Fortinet FortiGate and Palo Alto in their environment. Whenever our company's customers want to opt for a third-party firewall, we suggest firewall products from companies like Fortinet FortiGate and Palo Alto. There have been cases where our company's customer who already uses firewall products from Fortinet FortiGate and Palo Alto deployed on an on-premises model want to shift the same product to the cloud, going on the good experience they have had with the products. If our company's customers are not interested in purchasing a third-party firewall, my company suggests the cloud-native firewall provided by Azure, specifically for their landing zone environment.

Regarding Palo Alto, my company normally does a high availability configuration for our customers, which are active-active and active-passive. There are multiple add-on packages a customer can choose from in Palo Alto, including antivirus, web filtering, IDS, and IPS solutions.

Considering Azure, some customers may purchase Palo Alto Networks VM-300. Considering the pricing perspective, customers want multiple NIC types because they might have different spokes, and they may like to extend it with different interfaces on different spokes. Considering VM-Series on Azure Virtual Machines, since there is a limitation when it comes to Azure VM-300 as it supports only four cores, there may be some modifications made to support more cores.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for three to four years. My company functions as a managed service provider and an integrator for Palo Alto Networks.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series can be made more stable. I have seen some bugs in the solution. After deployment with an API call, you can use an HA solution in two scenarios, namely, as a load balancer and for API calls. I see that in the Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, there are some delays when it comes to an API call configuration.

It is a scalable tool. Considering the licensing part of the solution, it may not seem scalable, especially when you want to move from Palo Alto Networks VM-300 to Palo Alto Networks VM-500 since, for such a procedure, the virtual machines will have to be brought down and registered again with a different license, which is challenging.

My company's customers who use the solution are mostly enterprise-sized businesses.

The solution's technical support has been good. I rate the technical support a seven and a half to eight out of ten.

There are some delays that I have observed when my company communicates with Palo Alto's support engineers. There are also some problems related to the understanding of our company's issues with the product by Palo Alto's support team.

Positive

Users are provided with templates to go ahead with the deployment phase of Azure. There are already prepared templates available for installation, which users can use during installation.

Suppose our company's discussions with the customers are completed, and the design has been frozen. Considering the aforementioned case, the Palo Alto Networks VM-Series installation phase can be completed in a couple of hours, while the only time-consuming task is the creation of policies.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is easy to maintain.

From a security point of view, I find Palo Alto Networks VM-Series to be a better product compared to the other solutions in the market.

I rate the overall product a ten out of ten.

We use Palo Alto Networks VM-Series primarily for security purposes. It helps us with URL filtering, domain blocking, threat analysis, and detecting vulnerabilities.

We can monitor the traffic manually and detect threats. Additionally, we can block different IP addresses and URLs.

There could be dynamic DNS features similar to Fortinet in the product.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for six years.

I rate the product's stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the product's stability a seven out of ten. It could be better. We have four users for it at the moment. We plan to increase the number of devices.

We receive technical support from a local partner rather than directly from the vendor. The support team requires more training.

Positive

We have used Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) before. Compared to Palo Alto, Cisco devices are not feasible regarding hardware. They are very slow and complicated to find the granular level of results. Sometimes, even a technical expert is unable to fetch a proper report.

I rate the initial setup process an eight out of ten. It takes eight hours to complete and requires one security engineer to execute the process. The deployment involves setting up security policies. The on-premise installation is simple. However, VM installation is complicated in terms of the network interface.

It is an expensive product. I rate the pricing an eight out of ten. We purchased a three-year license for it.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series an eight out of ten.

This is our core firewall for the data center network.

We have two on-premises appliances set up in a high availability configuration.

The VM-Series enables us to extend consistent next-generation protection across different infrastructures with a unified policy model, which makes it very easy for us. It is very important that we have this single pane for monitoring all of the network resources and multiple devices because, today, it's a complex environment where you have to take care of many devices.

This solution makes it very easy to quickly migrate workloads to the cloud.

Since we updated the system, the network has been very stable. Previously, there were issues with traffic throughput. With the improved visibility we now have, the traffic is being properly monitored, which means that we are better able to manage it. These are improvements that we saw very quickly.

This is a firewall product and every OEM has claims about their special features. This device is very user-friendly and offers ease of monitoring.

Changes to the configuration happen quickly.

There is a single pane of glass for reporting, which is quite good. 

The interface is user-friendly.

It would be helpful if we had a direct number for the support manager or the supporting engineer. That would be better than having to email every time because there would be less wait. Having a dedicated number where we could send a text message in the case of an emergency would be helpful.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for approximately six months.

We are very much satisfied with the stability and performance.

This solution is quite scalable because it has options for deploying in a VM as well as an appliance. The interfaces are all license-based, which means that features can be added just by obtaining another license.

Our current environment has more than three gigs of traffic.

We have a team of four or five people that is responsible for the network. They are continually monitoring the firewall and updating the policies, as required.

Pala Alto has very good support. Generally, the response is very good and they address our issues as soon as we contact them. For example, they assisted us during our deployment and it was a very good experience.

My only complaint about the support has to do with complications that we had with communication. Sometimes, support was done over email, and because of the difference in time zone, there was occasionally a long gap in time before we got the proper response.

We used to have Cisco ASA and Firepower, and we had some issues with those firewalls. Once they were replaced by Palo Alto, we didn't have any problems after that. 

Compared to the previous devices that we have used from other vendors, Palo Alto is very user-friendly, and we are comfortable with the features and capabilities that it offers.

The initial setup is very straightforward and we had no issues with it. It is not complex because the procedures are properly defined, the documentation is available, and there is proper support. Our initial setup took about 15 days, which included migrating all of the data.

Our deployment is ongoing, as we are adding policies and dealing with updates on a day to day basis. We have a very complex environment that includes a firewall for the data center, as well as for the distribution networks.

The Palo Alto team supported us through the deployment process.

Palo Alto definitely needs to be more competitive compared to other products. The problem that I have faced is that the price of licensing is very high and not very competitive. When a customer wants to implement Palo Alto, even a small box, there are several licenses, and having all of them is sometimes really hard to justify. It is difficult for some clients to understand why such a small box costs so much.

For instance, they have the dashboard license, and then they have the user license, and so on. If the pricing were more competitive then it would be good because more customers would use the product, rather than use simpler firewalls.

We have worked with firewalls like Sophos, FortiGate, and Cisco ASA. We have dealt with almost all of the vendors but at this point, our experience with Palo Alto has been the best one. Palo Alto has been doing what it claims to do, whereas the other vendors' products have various shortcomings.

For example, some vendors do not have the performance that they claim in terms of throughput. Sometimes, the user interface is complex, or the device needs to restart whenever you make changes. With Palo Alto, it's simple to use and easy to get things done.

We have not yet used Panorama for centralized management but in the future, we may do so for other projects.

My advice for anybody who is looking into purchasing a firewall is to carefully consider what their requirements are. I have seen that when a customer procures a firewall, they initially choose products like Sophos. Over time, they engage in trials with the majority of the vendors and finally end up with Palo Alto. This is only after spending a lot of time and money on other products.

If instead, a client is aware of the requirements including how much traffic there is and what throughput is needed, it's better to invest in Palo Alto than to try all of the cheaper alternatives. Then, evaluate everything afterward and finally select Palo Alto. This, of course, is providing the client doesn't have limitations on the investment that they're going to make.

I say this because generally, in my practice, what I've seen is that when choosing a firewall, the clients first choose a cheaper alternative. Then, after some time they think that it may not be what they wanted. This could be brought about by a throughput issue or maybe some threats were not blocked or they have had some security incidents. After trying these firewalls, they replace them with another, and yet another, until finally, they settle on Palo Alto.

Essentially, my advice is to skip the cheaper vendors and go straight to Palo Alto.

In summary, this is a very good product and my only real complaint is about the cost. If it were more competitive then more customers would choose it, and those people suffering losses as a result of security incidents would be saved. I find the real reason that people don't choose the right product is due to the cost factor. Even when they know that the product is the best choice, because of the limitation that they have on the investment they can make, they're not able to choose it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

It is deployed on the Azure cloud to inspect the outbound traffic, but in the near future we will be working to inspect inbound and Azure Express Route traffic as well.

With Palo Alto VM-Series, we are capable through a single point of management and visualization both in infrastructure and on premises and in the cloud. This allows us to improve the speed to create new rules, speed up the resolution of problems, having a holistic vision of our firewall infrastructure.

Its security features, i.e. antimalware, threat prevention, URL Filtering, VPN, antivirus are the most valuable. The ID-User integrated with AD and 2FA feature is also very useful to provide access to servers and some users in the company. 

It can be improved in areas such as DevOps and quality assurance. The installation rules deployment process we also improved when we deployed these firewalls. In terms of new features, for simplicity reasons, it is faster, because as I mentioned above we can reused the same rules and the same objects from the local PAN that has a Panorama such as the single point of supervision.

We are looking for ways to integrate with other cloud in the future. For this, we will require a more secure integration and encrypted connections with other companies. 

I have been using this brand for more than ten years in on premises (appliances). Now, we are expanding this features to our Azure tenant with PAN VM-Series + Panorama.

It is stable and robust solution. Through Panorama manager, we can scale up automatically if the demand increase. At the moment, we do not have any problems with its stability.

We currently don't have many end-users of this solution. It is being used mostly for servers. We have around 100 servers. In the future, we plan to have more users. Our company has around 10,000 people.

PAN provides good support in general through its partners in Chile

No, the same brand is deployed, but in this case the change was a high availability architecture under Azure VM Scale Set mode.

We had some complexity because we had no experience in implementing it in the cloud, but with the support of the partner and the endorsement of the brand it was solved quickly. It took us a couple of weeks to implement it, and then we started testing. (traffic stress, fault escenarios, scale up, vulnerability assessment, etc.)

We took the professional services of a PAN partner or reseller in Chile. We had a good experience with them. They provide good support and have a qualified team working in security, together with the internal team of our company.

Its cost is $75.000. This is the total cost, and it includes the license, implementation fee, and support for two years.

We also evaluated Check Point, Fortinet, and Azure Firewall. We needed a single point to manage the on-premises firewall and cloud firewall. Our focus was simplicity without losing the security.

Fortinet is growing in the industry. Many companies in Chile are adopting this brand. Our company has not yet adopted this solution.  Our maintenance teams don't know this technology, which would have been a problem.

Check Point is a good brand. Their product is robust, but we found an issue in using their firewall manager with the hybrid architecture like ours, where we have both on-premises and on-cloud deployments.

Both are also a leader in Gartner Quadrant and Forrester together with Palo Alto.

Azure Firewall needs to improve.

Good support from the brand and local partner in Chile.

The primary use case involves using next-generation firewalls, hardware, VM-Series, Prisma Access for SASE solutions, Prisma Cloud for cloud security posture management, and Cloud Workload Protection. It's used primarily for securing customers' virtualized data center environments as well as public cloud environments.

The additional visibility, which was lacking with cloud-native tools, has improved the organization's cloud security posture. Advanced enforcement and granular security controls help manage potential threats.

The most effective feature for threat prevention is the threat prevention model in the VM-Series. This is bundled with advanced URL filtering, decryption, and wildfire sandboxing.

If additional web application firewall capabilities could be integrated into the existing firewall, it would negate the need for additional products.

I've been working with Palo Alto VM-Series for at least five to six years now.

We haven't had challenges with failovers yet.

We've controlled the scalability via VMSS in Azure, using auto-scale groups in AWS. It's quite seamless, though there's room for improvement in cost management, especially during traffic spikes.

The technical support is great. We've had no challenges and there are established channels for customer success and professional services.

In the past, I used to work with Check Point, but haven't worked with them lately. Given the support from Palo Alto, there hasn't been a necessity to explore others.

The integration process involved using a Panorama setup for centralized firewall administration, transitioning from cloud-native firewalls to VM-Series.

We are primarily a consulting firm and reseller, so we've had significant involvement in the process.

The solution tends to add to costs especially when scaling, although measures like using large compute instances minimize the need for scaling.

Potential competitors mentioned are Check Point and Cisco but haven't been evaluated recently.

For straightforward firewall inspection and basic IPS, IDS requirements, native firewalls might suffice. For more advanced needs, using VM-Series or Palo Alto Firewalls is recommended.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We use the product to mitigate vulnerabilities for the applications running on particular VMs.

The product's most valuable feature is pricing.

Compared to Azure Firewall, the product could be better in terms of performance.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for three years.

The product is stable.

It is an easy-to-scale product and suitable for enterprises.

Palo Alto's support is good. Whenever I raise a ticket, they immediately look into it and make a Zoom call.

Positive

I have used Cisco's Next-Generation Firewall before. It works better than Palo Alto.

Palo Alto's installation process is easy because we use Panorama tool to manage it. We can communicate and implement traffic policies, filtering, and other specific options with its help.

It requires two to three engineers and takes two days to complete the deployment. For maintenance, it requires a team of two engineers.

It's good to work with Palo Alto Networks VM-Series. I recommend it to others and rate it an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for hands-on testing purposes and also for activating firewall re-entries, which is easy to accomplish. We only need to turn up the VM to the firewall. This serves users who are working at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We also utilize the solution in respect to several servers which are behind the firewall.

A valuable feature of the solution is that it is not dependent on the hypervisor so we can install it on Hyper-V Microsoft software and deploy it. We have even installed it on Nutanix 81, in which it is supported. It is not dependent on the platform and is stable. 

When we activate the solution on Amazon, instead of AWS, GCP or another type of public cloud, we encounter problems, as our engineers are not yet completely hands-on in respects of the public cloud platforms. Still, they can configure the firewall just fine. 

Integrative capabilities with other solutions should also be addressed. 

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for the past five-and-a-half years.

The solution is reliable. 

We have tried to scale. The Western side of migration is very easy in terms of scalability. Our customers may increase their licensing counts in tandem with their increased performance requirements from the firewall. In this case, they would procure a VMP and the license. The activation of the firewall would be accomplished by the tech in the back-end. The customer would get the migration capabilities and procure the license without experiencing any downtime. 

There is room for improvement from the side of technical support. 

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The deployment takes two days. This includes installing the solution on the OVO files, upgrading the firewall panel records, activating the license and configuring basic policies and rules. However, our setup was basic and did not involve business activity, which would necessitate a technical business setup. In such case, the process from start to finish may take a customer up to 10 or 15 days. 

The VM series is licensed annually.

The option exists to procure a basic license. With this, the firewall feature comes with the application and the board, with everything in code. A subscription is included. 

The solution is cost effective in comparison to others. 

We deploy the solution on-premises for customers and organizations, although we also do so via AWS.

There are around 16 users connected to the VMP firewall. 

The security feature is really good, although there would be a bit of a learning curve when it comes to the cloud.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series as a nine out of ten.