We performed a comparison between Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Juniper SRX Series Firewall is highly regarded for its simplicity, intuitive interface, and exceptional customer assistance. It provides advantageous capabilities, including site-to-site VPN, effortless configuration, and a robust command line. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls excel in embedded machine learning, formidable security functionalities, and a cohesive platform. They present features such as application identification, DNS security, URL filtering, and GlobalProtect VPN.
Juniper SRX Series Firewall could enhance its capacity, reporting and alerts, user interface, device reliability, documentation, and feature set. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls would benefit from improved customization, configuration simplicity, machine learning capabilities, troubleshooting tools, documentation, user interface, VPN availability, and product stability.
Service and Support: Customers have generally found the customer service of Juniper SRX Series Firewall to be satisfactory, with helpful and knowledgeable support. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have received mixed feedback, as some customers have praised the support while others have expressed dissatisfaction.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Juniper SRX Series Firewall is time-consuming, varying based on the environment's complexity. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are known for their simplicity and ease of use. Palo Alto is considered more user-friendly and has a quicker deployment time.
Pricing: The setup cost for Juniper SRX Series Firewall is seen as simple, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are considered to be more expensive than other vendors. Juniper's pricing is fair and within budget, while Palo Alto's pricing is justified considering the level of security and features offered.
ROI: Juniper SRX Series Firewall is praised for its reliability, consistent performance, and advanced security capabilities, which ultimately lead to a favorable return on investment. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls excel in providing better visibility, detailed reporting, and streamlined management, resulting in decreased administrative burden.
Comparison Results: Based on the comparison between Juniper SRX Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, it is evident that users prefer Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. This is due to its embedded machine learning for real-time attack prevention, strong security capabilities, and a unified platform that offers ease of use and maintenance. Users appreciate the advanced security features and user-friendly interface.
"The next-generation firewall is great."
"It's an easy solution to set up."
"The dashboard I have found the most valuable in Fortinet FortiGate."
"The web tutor and automatic rules by schedule are good features."
"There is an easy process for configuring it, and it is straightforward to implement the device from scratch."
"This solution has solid UTM features combined with a nice GUI."
"The product is very stable, easy to troubleshoot, and configure, so it has reduced the time it takes for support."
"The initial setup of Fortinet FortiGate was straightforward."
"You can scale the solution."
"The most powerful feature in Juniper SRX is definitely NCLS."
"We mostly use the Layer 4 firewall functions: Access rules, NAT, and site-to-site IPsec VPN."
"The solution has been good for fulfilling our basic needs."
"The command line in Juniper SRX is extremely powerful, in my opinion. It's one of the best command lines I've used in networking products."
"vSRX is easy to deploy to any virtual infrastructure, such as OpenStack, VMware, and even Docker (cSRX)."
"We're primarily using Juniper's EPA feature, but not the other things. We use it to manage different points of firewalling of routing."
"From a protection perspective, it provides a network perimeter security function for our company."
"Some of the valuable features in this solution are traffic monitoring, GUI functionality, and it very easy to troubleshoot if there is any problem that happens."
"GlobalProtect and App-ID features are very good."
"We like the fact that this product can provide multiple layers of protection depending on our clients requirements, and can be configured to whatever level of protection and the specific protocols that they want."
"It is an extremely powerful solution as it provides visibility into all the network traffic, and offers a range of actions such as blocking websites or graphics, as well as load balancing. It's a great tool."
"We have not had to replace hardware routers nor purchase additional hardware. So, that has provided a little bit of an ROI."
"The structure is much faster and more sophisticated than Cisco."
"The solution does a great job of identifying malicious items and vulnerabilities with URL filtering."
"Ability to log each and every application."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by adding enhancements to FortiMail, FortiSOAR, and FortiDeceptor."
"The way everything is set up could be easier. Currently, people need a lot of experience and knowledge to administer it and to link it to devices."
"Reporting is limited to providing an external appliance for improving the reporting capabilities of the FortiAnalyzer. It does not offer a central management and is also sold separably as an appliance."
"I would like to see a more intuitive dashboard."
"Due to its higher cost, Fortinet FortiGate can lead to increased operational expenses."
"One issue that I have had is that sometimes I need to monitor the traffic, so I need to filter it according to the user and which user is using it the most. I experience a bottleneck most of the time, particularly at the peak time when the number of contracts and users are at maximum."
"The user interface could be improved to make it less confusing and easier to set up."
"From a reporting perspective, there's room for improvement. They're providing FortiAnalyzer through which one can get some enhancements, but the visibility and reporting still need slight improvement."
"It could improve areas which need high performance."
"It should be easier to escalate support tickets."
"The CLI is verbose. You have to say a lot to do a little. I don't like that part of it. Cisco's command syntax seems to be a good bit more concise. When you're trying to get something done, you don't want to have to type a bunch."
"The pricing strategy of the vendor could improve."
"Sometimes committing configurations takes a lot of time in Juniper because of the connections, and it could be a little bit faster."
"It could be more secure."
"The GUI needs improvement."
"I would like to have a better web UI for administration. Juniper could simplify the web UI and make it more compatible with mobile devices."
"PA-220 Next-Generation Firewall would be perfect if it has spam filtering."
"As things are evolving, we want to make sure that Palo Alto is able to keep up with what is going on outside. They should continue to do more intelligence-related enhancements and integrate with some of the other security tools. We want to have a more intelligent toolset down the road."
"We are not happy with Palo Alto at all. It would be better if they provided more support for the firewall. We have a few pending issues with the configuration for each application. We cannot deploy them yet due to some support-related problems in the firewall. We have deployed a few policies for DNS spoofing and DNS attacks, but we could only block a few IP addresses through the policy. That's DNS security, and we have configured a few policies for DNS spoofing and more. URL categorization and URL filtering are not yet adequately maintained. For example, if you created a few rules in the rule-based configuration and made some rules downstairs, you will lose some of them if you give access upstairs. It's not giving us a proper solution for which route it is using. We need to apply the application-based policies and URL filtering-based policies. It creates more issues because we are not getting good support from the team."
"With new features and applications you get bugs."
"The solution could offer better pricing. We'd like it if it could be a bit more affordable for us."
"In Mexico, Palo Alto's discounts are significantly lower than Cisco's. They are also more expensive – about 15% or 20% – than Cisco, but their platforms are very similar."
"The functionalities are limited."
"We have a lot of the older firewall models, i.e., the PA-220. It seems that with newer operating systems the PA-220 is becoming slower than when I first bought it. It is not really an issue for users who are passing traffic through the firewall, but more from the management access of it."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Juniper SRX Series Firewall is ranked 16th in Firewalls with 87 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 5th in Firewalls with 164 reviews. Juniper SRX Series Firewall is rated 7.8, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Juniper SRX Series Firewall writes "Highly scalable, user-friendly UI, and easy to maintain". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". Juniper SRX Series Firewall is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Check Point NGFW and Meraki MX, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Sophos XGS. See our Juniper SRX Series Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.