We performed a comparison between Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center and Palo Alto Networks Panorama based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewall Security Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is useful and powerful."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the intrusion prevention system."
"The solution has a great UI and a policy deployment mechanism, and all the configuration is easily manageable for the firewalls."
"Cisco's support and services are far superior to any other security product in Pakistan."
"The most valuable aspects are the antivirus and URL filtering."
"The product's user interface is very easy to use and convenient."
"I like its system management and filtering options as a layer seven firewall."
"The installation process is very simple."
"The product was great, and whenever there was a bug or issue, they released updates quickly. Additionally, their support was very good."
"The solution is very stable. It's reliable. We don't experience bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash. It works as expected."
"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."
"The most valuable item is centralization and we can get all of the router bases in a single window."
"The dashboards are very good on Palo Alto. They offer a centralized dashboard for managers as well."
"Centralized firewall management and update management are the most valuable features."
"We use the solution for centralized monitoring."
"The product's setup could be easier."
"The IOS and the deploy option could be improved."
"Improving the product by incorporating SD-WAN functionality would be highly beneficial, especially for remote offices with limited server and Internet availability."
"The performance of the Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center could be improved."
"Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center's logging functionality could be improved."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"I had a challenging time trying to size the firewall on the cloud. Maybe the information is there, but I couldn't find it easily. Usually, it depends on the cloud provider itself, whether you use AWS or Azure. These guys give you the information, so this part is not as detailed."
"It takes five to seven minutes to push one policy."
"Instead of searching their knowledge base in their website, maybe they can interact with us in the user interface to explain things better."
"Customer support can improve."
"We have had some issues in the past because integrating a new device is not intuitive."
"My company's getting whatever it needs from Palo Alto Networks Panorama, but in the cloud, there's an issue with CPU management, and that's an area for improvement. Though the normal data traffic doesn't go through the management interface, whenever there's an increase in the throughput, CPU management becomes high. If you increase the load, CPU management spikes, and it's what needs to be taken care of in Palo Alto Networks Panorama."
"Aside from pricing, I don't have any issues with Panorama."
"The product does need a bit of configuration. It's not quite ready to go out of the box."
"Reporting might be an area to improve. It can provide reporting or some sort of graphical representation of your environment."
"The alerts in Palo Alto Networks Panorama could improve by integration with other systems, such as a forwarding trigger system. For example, if a customer has their own system it would be helpful to have the alarms integrated."
More Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is ranked 7th in Firewall Security Management with 19 reviews while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 3rd in Firewall Security Management with 80 reviews. Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center writes "A stable and reasonably priced product that protects organizations from malware". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Built-in proxy with the ability to maintain your own policies". Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, FireMon Security Manager and Cisco Defense Orchestrator, whereas Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud and Tufin Orchestration Suite. See our Cisco Secure Firewall Management Center vs. Palo Alto Networks Panorama report.
See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.
We monitor all Firewall Security Management 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.
