We performed a comparison between Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Palo Alto Networks PA-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.
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"FortiGate firewalls are easy to manage through a user-friendly web interface. They also have advanced features like DDoS and DLP. However, I wouldn't recommend enabling all of these features on one device because it can cause performance issues."
"It is user friendly, and has all the features you need."
"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."
"Some of the key features of the solution is that it has good reporting, you can receive many details from the connection, for example, clients and website information."
"It has very easy management and an amazing ETM configuration."
"Some of the valuable features are the firewall, IPS, web filter, and gateway capabilities. Additionally, it is easy to use and flexible."
"The base firewall features are quite valuable to us."
"It is a complete security bundle. The cloud-based Sky Advanced Threat Prevention feature is very valuable. I am 100% satisfied with the performance of the Juniper firewall. It has a very good throughput. It works very fine. We use our firewall as a site-to-site VPN or Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN). In both cases, it has a very good and optimum performance. Their service support is very good in India. I get really good support from the Juniper team."
"Great as an inter-segmentation firewall or border or arch-firewall."
"It protects the data behind our switches."
"It's easily scalable."
"Juniper is a highly flexible platform, and you get more bang for your buck compared to a Cisco product."
"We use it as a firewall at our head office and branches."
"We did not have problems with scaling, as we have less than 500 users in our organization."
"The security features and the model collection are the most valuable."
"It is scalable. But that depends on what model you are using."
"App-ID is a really good feature."
"A valuable feature that we can consider is the deployment time, which is significantly reduced. It is almost 90% faster compared to other solutions."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"It is stable when you set up something and put it into production. Once it works, you don't have other tasks or actions to perform."
"The cloud-based aspect helps significantly. It integrates seamlessly with other Palo products like Prisma Cloud, offers robust VPN protection, and it's all in one convenient package."
"It offers a seamless transition from one option to another, making it exceptionally versatile and user-friendly in an enterprise setting."
"Comprehensive logging is essential for monitoring and analysis purposes. For remote users, the firewall can be configured as a VPN concentrator, with VPN policies defined within the firewall settings."
"The customization could be improved. Cisco, for example, is much better at this. They need to work to be at least as good as they are."
"My only complaint about FortiGate is a lack of QinQ VLAN tunneling. I haven't found this feature in any Fortinet product. You can do this on all Cisco routers, including the smaller models. However, QinQ isn't available on the biggest, most expensive Fortinet units. They still don't have that. I think now we're on software version 6.0, and they still haven't found a solution for QinQ. It isn't a dealbreaker, but that's my main complaint."
"There were quite a few problems with the stability of the system."
"There are some tiny bugs that sometimes affect the operations. In the past revision of it, there was a bug. Because of the bug, we had to downgrade the version. It happened only with the last revision."
"Lacks sufficient security options."
"The support is the main thing that needs to be improved."
"I would like to see more advanced developments of a wireless controller in the future."
"I would like some automated custom reporting."
"The GUI needs to be easier and more helpful for users who don't have security experience."
"There are a lot of features that customers do not know about and I think that better documentation would help when it comes to learning how to use the product."
"We tried configuring the IDS for more than four months, but it did not work properly."
"The pricing strategy of the vendor could improve."
"The user interface is something that Juniper needs to improve."
"The solution's configurations and syntax are specific and more complicated than other platforms."
"The reporting is lacking."
"While the GUI is pretty good on the Juniper side, there can still be tweaks made to it that will make it even better."
"The product's high prices are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"There seem to be some issues with TAC (Technical Assistance Center) or Palo Alto support. Anytime you open a case, a level one engineer joins, and then you have to escalate it to level two or three. The support system has changed in the past few years, and that's something they need to look into."
"I encountered a slight issue with the application portal, which was not functioning correctly."
"The solution's licensing price could be improved."
"I have found that the tool works well for me, but there are areas where security testing and protection could be improved, especially in virtual or cloud environments. However, in this project, once we deployed it, we haven't encountered any issues. The cost is currently manageable, but as we migrate fully into the cloud, additional features like capacity upgrading and improvements to hardware resources will be necessary, especially since our equipment consists of older generation switches and routers. So, I'm looking for additional capabilities in these areas."
"The product's gateway services can be improved."
"The pricing of the solution needs improvement."
"Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is complicated to configure compared to one of its competitors."
Juniper SRX Series Firewall is ranked 19th in Firewalls with 86 reviews while Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is ranked 17th in Firewalls with 28 reviews. Juniper SRX Series Firewall is rated 7.8, while Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Juniper SRX Series Firewall writes "Highly scalable, user-friendly UI, and easy to maintain". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks PA-Series writes "Offers trained customer support, stability and ease of use ". Juniper SRX Series Firewall is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Netgate pfSense, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Check Point NGFW, whereas Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is most compared with OPNsense, SonicWall NSa, Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Juniper SRX Series Firewall vs. Palo Alto Networks PA-Series report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors and 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.
