Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Review

The DPI ability to understand web applications and build access rules on web application categories are great features


What is our primary use case?

We use these firewalls on-premise. We use them as a central gateway for internet security. We also use them for organizing access to the internet from organizations, and security access rules.

What is most valuable?

We have found the DPI ability to understand web applications and build access rules on web application categories first to be a great feature. The firewalls have good integration and good log journals' integration with Qradar. This is how the system produces user logs, how they build, how they structure the logs is stable to integrate with SIEM. For example, Check Point is not so good in this category.

What needs improvement?

They could improve their support and pricing and maybe integration. It's a little more expensive than Check Point but the quality is better. Integration with firewall endpoints could be better. Palo Alto does have very good malware or antivirus protection. I think they could improve on that front.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using the Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls for about 12 months. We are using the latest version.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We have found Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls to be a very stable solution and very convenient solution.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We don't have any problems with the performance. It works very good. We have not had any problems. If we compare with Check Point, Check Point is not really good in stability, not for monitoring. That is why we didn't choose Check Point to move to Palo Alto.

How are customer service and technical support?

We are satisfied with Palo Alto's support. We don't need to contact them frequently but when we do it is a good experience.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

If we compare with Check Point, Check Point is not really good in stability, not for monitoring. That is why we didn't choose Check Point to move to Palo Alto. Compared with Check Point, it's excellent. It's very good. It's even better than Cisco also. So for this kind of usage scenario, it's very good. We don't use it as a regular firewall or perimeter firewall. We use it only as an internet gateway. But for an internet gateway, it's very good.

How was the initial setup?

It was a very straightforward install and we were able to perform it from the Palo Alto books available. It only took one or two days for the installation. No problem with SIEM integrations or with the security policies. It's just worked as expected.

What about the implementation team?

We performed the installation in house from the Palo Alto books available. 

What other advice do I have?

I would give Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls a rating of nine on a scale of ten.

**Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls reviews from users
...who work at a Comms Service Provider
...who compared it with Cisco ASA Firewall
Learn what your peers think about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: June 2021.
512,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Add a Comment
ITCS user
Guest