We performed a comparison between Hillstone CloudEdge 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."The next-generation firewall is great."
"The Intrusion Prevention System and the web filtering are both working well."
"It performs very well."
"The solution can scale well."
"The initial setup of Fortinet FortiGate was straightforward."
"FortiGate is flexible and easy to use."
"The user interface is relatively easy. The devices are easy to deploy and figure out when you have experience with other security appliances."
"UTM/NGFW features and FortiCloud for logs and backups are awesome."
"The solution is very easy to download and configure. The initial setup was very easy. The technical support is very good."
"It has the ability to create Palo Alto VM-series using software."
"The solution strengthens our IT posture."
"It has a good performance which helps you with the stability of your virtual environment."
"The Palo Alto VM-Series is nice because I can move the firewalls easily."
"We now know a lot more detail about what our users are doing on the network."
"It has excellent scalability."
"We have reduced the number of configuration lines by 90%. We need fewer number of admins right now because of it."
"The most valuable features are the User ID, URL filtering, and application filtering."
"The reports are very basic."
"I think they need to improve more in order to be a competitor with the leaders of the field."
"If I had any criticism that I would give FortiGate, it would be that they need to stop changing their logging format. Every time we do a firmware upgrade, it is a massive issue on the SIM. Parsers have to be rebuilt. Even the FortiGate guys came in and said that they don't play well in the sandbox."
"Some of the web policy reports could be improved."
"The cloud management and automation capability could be improved."
"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."
"I think the only issue that needs improvement is the interface."
"They need to improve their technical support."
"The solution needs more granular level reporting on system usage."
"The solution's licensing could be improved, and training should be included before installation."
"It is not very easy to scale up the solution."
"The implementation should be simplified."
"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."
"They made only a halfhearted attempt to put in DLP (Data Loss Prevention)."
"The product could be better in terms of performance than one of its competitors."
"I would like to have automatic daily reporting, such as how many users have connected via SSL VPN."
"The solution must improve Zero Trust integration and use cases."
Hillstone CloudEdge is ranked 32nd in Firewalls with 1 review while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 50 reviews. Hillstone CloudEdge is rated 10.0, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Hillstone CloudEdge writes "A stable solution that is easy to configure". 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". Hillstone CloudEdge 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.