JamesJiangIT Security Analyst at a energy/utilities company
Anonymous UserCyberSecurity Architecture Manager at a computer software company
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The solution is very stable. It's reliable. We don't experience bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash. It works as expected."
"The product features allow the capacity to take effective, advanced security measures."
"Centralized management is a valuable feature."
"Our team has the option to make configuration changes at any given time."
"Palo Alto technical support is excellent."
"The compliance features are very effective at identifying things that need to be properly hardened."
"Networks Panorama has improved our organizational security"
"You don't need an overly experienced workforce to handle Palo Alto. It's very easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is alerting, which lets me know when someone has made a change."
"There are a lot of benefits to using the reporting. It gives us duplicate objects, duplicate services, shadow firewall rules, and the firewall rules not needed for a given number of days or months."
"It allows administrators to visualize the traffic flow, and troubleshoot when necessary."
"You can easily scale the solution if you need to."
"The solution is quite scalable."
"The technical support is pretty good."
"It provides very good reports. It can easily integrate with multiple firewalls, such as Cisco, Juniper, Palo Alto, and Checkpoint. We can push a policy from Tufin to a firewall, which is a very good feature. We can monitor all access rules and the operating system of a firewall."
"The reporting on offer is very good. Tufin makes nice reports."
"The solution should improve the speed at which they make changes on the system. Historically, they've been a bit slow in that respect. They should apply changes to the box quicker and more often."
"The product could use some method of allowing for more customization and open integration with other controls."
"Lacking in speed and reliability."
"At times we have noticed that we get into issues where Panorama is going too slow or has other little problems. The performance can suffer occasionally."
"This would be a better solution if it were more tightly integrated with the firewalls."
"They need to do less bug-related releases and create versions that are stable for at least six months at a time. I don't find this issue in other solutions like Cisco, Check Point, FortiGate, or others. Those just provide a patch if there is a bug and we don't have to worry about downtime."
"I would like to have better analytics."
"It should have more connection with Threat Intelligence Cloud. They can also include features related to SecOps and automation API."
"I would like to see visibility into the FW features like IPS/Content Filter policies, the same way it does for FW rules/policies."
"There are pros and cons to the workflow. You cannot customize it fully and there are some limitations. You cannot create a pure object, a firewall, IP, or service (single layer) object. You can only create a firewall object group. That is one of the challenges."
"They need to offer more support to vendors, such as Cisco, Checkpoint, Fortinet, and Forcepoint."
"The initial setup can be tough."
"The older version that we have doesn't support some newer firewall vendors."
"The pricing of the solution is rather expensive."
"Currently, we are able to monitor access rules and the operating system of a firewall. It would be great if we can also monitor the configuration of the firewall through Tufin."
"The pricing could be a bit more competitive."
"We pay approximately $3,000 a year in order to use the product."
"The pricing model is reasonable for this class of solutions."
"Palo Alto is expensive and there are many cheaper firewalls, but they do not work as well."
"It is not a cheap solution."
"The price of Panorama is expensive."
"The solution is priced well and there is a license for this solution that we pay annually for."
"We have a yearly license. The cost is not that high and not that cheap either."
"Sometimes the company prefers to give a license to test the product in our environment before we go to the customer. But the customer should buy his own license, and that's the system here. The system is different between one country and another. Some countries say that the IT solutions provider should provide the license."
"I believe our cost is more than $100,000 per year."
"It's quite an expensive solution."
"Price could always be better, but there are always consequences."
"The price is on the cheaper side."
"Its price is reasonable, but it could be lower. It has been cost-effective for us. We have a contract for three years."
"Because we're quite a large company, the price wasn't too much of a factor for us."
Panorama network security management provides static rules and dynamic security updates in an ever-changing threat landscape. Reduce administrator workload and improve your overall security posture with a single rule base for firewall, threat prevention, URL filtering, application awareness, user identification, file blocking and data filtering.
Tufin enables organizations to automate their security policy visibility, risk management, provisioning and compliance across their multi-vendor, hybrid environment. Customers gain visibility and control across their network, ensure continuous compliance with security standards and embed security enforcement into workflows and development pipelines.
Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 3rd in Firewall Security Management with 32 reviews while Tufin is ranked 2nd in Firewall Security Management with 13 reviews. Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.6, while Tufin is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Easy to manage with a straightforward initial setup and good stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tufin writes "Provides great visibility, allows us to automate the entire change process, and saves A LOT of time". Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud, FireMon and Skybox Security Suite, whereas Tufin is most compared with AlgoSec, FireMon, Skybox Security Suite, ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer and Cisco Defense Orchestrator. See our Palo Alto Networks Panorama vs. Tufin report.
See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.
We monitor all Firewall Security Management 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.