We performed a comparison between Juniper vSRX and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is simple to manage, and there are a lot of functionalities in the same box."
"It's very easy to set up, it's very easy to make policies and, for an organization, that means you don't need IT expert in firewalls. You just need to have somebody who knows a little bit of IT, and that's it. With other products, you need someone with a "Masters" degree in firewalls."
"Consolidated our network environment at all locations, but mainly at our datacenter."
"The web filtering feature and the intrusion protection system are the most valuable. It is a resilient appliance. I never had an issue with it in terms of any security breaches."
"It can expand easily."
"This is a quality product with ok support, and it is better than the competition we've tried."
"Security, SD-WAN, and Streetscape are valuable features."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The features we found most valuable are using the IDS and IPS during protection. The application filtering feature is great."
"There are a few valuable features that offer very good quality on the solution. Especially NetScreen. We used to use NetScreen for the the product line. It was a very mature solution, very robust, easy to configure, easy to manage, etc. It made it easy to do everything."
"It's much faster to deploy a power source. If you need to deploy a firewall in the cloud of software, it's much easier and much faster than deploying the office firewall in a rush."
"The dashboard, customization, API, and pricing are good."
"The hardware is stable."
"The technical support has been good."
"The technical support services are excellent."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"We use the product on our Azure network firewalls."
"In AWS, Palo Alto provides us a better view than flow logs for network traffic."
"It is an easy-to-scale product."
"We now know a lot more detail about what our users are doing on the network."
"It provides complete security posture from end-to-end. This has given us better visibility into what our security aspects are."
"It gives us the ease that we are secure. We have set up the proper things that help make our data safe."
"The VM-Series reports how much bandwidth a particular IP is using. You don't need to regularly log into a website, like a Cisco command, to see what kind of ACL it's getting. There isn't an ACL use portal event. You can go there and see how much my ACL has been getting me."
"We can monitor the traffic manually and detect threats. Additionally, we can block different IP addresses and URLs."
"I don't really have anything negative to say as far as Fortinet firewalls are concerned. If anything, they can support a user a little bit better. They can stop being so time-sensitive about how much time the support call has taken, and they can help you do it yourself."
"The cloud management and automation capability could be improved."
"Some of the filtering is not robust, you can escape it with a VPN. Some of the users bypass some of the filters. It catches some but it also misses some, that area could be improved. It's functioning reasonably but there's room for improvement in that area."
"The graphical user interface of Fortinet's FortiGate product does not function well with text-based interfaces."
"They can do more tests before they release new versions because I would like to be more assured. We had some experiences where they release something new and great, but some of the old features are disabled or they don't work well, which impacts the product satisfaction. The manufacturer should be able to prove that everything works or not only that it might work. This is applicable to most of the other services, software, and hardware companies. They all should work on this. We cannot trust every new release, such as a beta release, on the first day. We wait for some comments on the forums and from other companies that we know. We always wait a few weeks before we use the updated version. They should also extend the VPN client application, especially for Linux versions. Currently, it has an application for Linux devices, but it doesn't work the way we want to connect to the VPN. They use only the old connection, not the new one. They have VPN client applications for Windows and Mac, but they can add more useful features to better manage the devices and monitor the current health of each device. Such features would be helpful for our company."
"They sometimes hide some features and if you want to enable them, you have to go in the CLI, enable the feature and configure it through the CLI. Customers, typically, like everything to be done by the GUI."
"Pricing for it is a bit high. It could be cheaper."
"FortiLink is the interface on the firewall that allows you to extend switch management across all of your switches in the network. The problem with it is that you can't use multiple interfaces unless you set them up in a lag. Only then you can run them. So, it forces you to use a core type of switch to propagate that management out to the rest of the switches, and then it is running the case at 200. It leaves you with 18 ports on the firewall because it is also a layer-three router that could also be used as a switch, but as soon as you do that, you can't really use them. They could do a little bit more clean up in the way the stacking interface works. Some use cases and the documentation on the FortiLink checking interface are a little outdated. I can find stuff on version 5 or more, but it is hard to find information on some of the newer firmware. The biggest thing I would like to see is some improvement in the switch management feature. I would like to be able to relegate some of the ports, which are on the firewall itself, to act as a switch to take advantage of those ports. Some of these firewalls have clarity ports on them. If I can use those, it would mean that I need to buy two less switches, which saves time. I get why they don't, but I would still like to see it because it would save a little bit of space in the server rack."
"The reporting can be improved."
"The user interface could always be better. They could make it simpler and more intuitive."
"There are too many types of licenses, which can be confusing."
"They really need to improve the GUI."
"The GUI really needs a lot of work, and it has got worse with successive version updates."
"The solution can be improved by allowing automatic updates for the OS devices."
"I would like to see an activity sensor for malicious content or sensor for viruses and malware."
"Some people complain that the solution tends to have a steep learning curve. It could be because most people have basic familiarity with Cisco or other similar products and maybe have never worked closely with Juniper products."
"Palo Alto is that it is really bad when it comes to technical support."
"I would like to see a more thorough QA process. We have had some difficulties from bugs in releases."
"We feel that the setup was complex. So, we asked the tech team about the setup process. They explained how to deploy it in the right way, which made it very simple."
"We have run into some issues with scaling and limitations associated with some of the configurations."
"The product's AIOps process needs improvement."
"There is no proper support channel to follow up on cases."
"We have ran into issues with Palo Alto’s limitations for resolving large IP lists from DNS lookups, as well as the antivirus interfering with App-ID."
"The DLP functionality or data classification can be improved in the solution's basic firewalling."
Juniper vSRX is ranked 26th in Firewalls with 30 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 52 reviews. Juniper vSRX is rated 7.8, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Juniper vSRX writes "Fast with good usability and fairly scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". Juniper vSRX is most compared with Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Cisco Secure Firewall and Fortinet FortiGate-VM, whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Zyxel Unified Security Gateway. See our Juniper vSRX vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series report.
See our list of 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.