We performed a comparison between Comodo Dome Firewall [EOL] and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."Fortinet FortiGate is scalable for our users. Right now, we have almost 70 users. We do not have any plan to increase our usage of FortiGate. For maintaining the firewall solution, one staff member is enough."
"The solution is highly scalable because they have devices that can handle a large amount of traffic."
"The interface is very good."
"The initial installation is very straightforward."
"The most important features of Fortinet FortiGate are the Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and firewall control applications."
"Good performance, stability, and virtual domain ability."
"The email protection and VPN features are the most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is load balancing. It can provide central management and VPNA. Additionally, it has enhanced our security environment."
"This solution is user-friendly."
"The solution enables organizations to enforce policies."
"We can monitor the traffic manually and detect threats. Additionally, we can block different IP addresses and URLs."
"Palo Alto’s Panorama centralized management system simplifies our security posture based on our requirements. Instead of manually pulling logs, then generating them into readable formats, it gives us the console in a readable format to view."
"The main advantage of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series stems from the fact that you can access it with the help of cloud services."
"It provides complete security posture from end-to-end. This has given us better visibility into what our security aspects are."
"The most valuable features are web control and IPS/IDS."
"The VM-Series scalability is fast and easy to implement, improving our security posture as our Azure network grows."
"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."
"Its price could be better."
"Due to its higher cost, Fortinet FortiGate can lead to increased operational expenses."
"We had a minor problem where there was a major system upgrade on the hardware platfrom and the Mac client was not available as soon as it might have been. The PC client was available immediately, but we had to wait a month or so, before there was a mac client. I was slightly irritated that it was not ready on time, but it was eventually resolved."
"I think the only issue that needs improvement is the interface."
"I would like to see improvements in the product's application rules."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by adding enhancements to FortiMail, FortiSOAR, and FortiDeceptor."
"They've become quite expensive."
"Fortinet needs to overhaul its documentation."
"I haven't seen any feature that will allow me direct authentication for a VPN solution."
"It would be good if the common features work consistently in physical and virtual environments. There was an integration issue in the virtual deployment where it didn't report the interface counters, and we had to upgrade to the latest version, whereas the same thing has been working in the physical deployment for ages now. It seems that it was because of Azure. We were using VMware before, and we didn't have any such issues. We do see such small issues where we expect things to work, but they don't because of some incompatibilities. There also seems to be a limitation on how to do high availability in a virtualized environment. All features should be consistently available in physical and virtual environments. It is not always easy to integrate Palo Alto in the network management system. We would like to be able to compare two network management systems. They can maybe allow monitoring an interface through the GUI to create a reference or do a baseline check about whether your network monitoring system is actually giving you the correct traffic figures. You need traffic figures to be able to recognize the trends and plan the capacity."
"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."
"Palo Alto Networks VM-Series needs to improve its order process."
"They made only a halfhearted attempt to put in DLP (Data Loss Prevention)."
"The solution must improve Zero Trust integration and use cases."
"Palo Alto is that it is really bad when it comes to technical support."
"The solution's licensing could be improved, and training should be included before installation."
"The implementation should be simplified."
Earn 20 points
Comodo Dome Firewall [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 52 reviews. Comodo Dome Firewall [EOL] is rated 8.0, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Comodo Dome Firewall [EOL] writes "User-Friendly, improves security, and gives me more control over my VoIP". 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". Comodo Dome Firewall [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Juniper SRX Series Firewall.
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.