We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks VM-Series and Sangfor NGAF 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."Their reliability and their policy of pre-shipping replacements when a unit has failed."
"This product is definitely scalable."
"There are great templates, so you don't have to customize them if you don't want to. You do have the option to custom create some folders and some reports, however, with what is there, you don't really need to go through extra effort, as they already give you a lot of predefined views of reports and so forth."
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"The next-generation firewall is great."
"The base firewall features are quite valuable to us."
"The multi-tenancy feature is most valuable. It integrates very well with FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer."
"The response is very quick and they can visually resolve our problems in a short period."
"It is an easy-to-scale product."
"The Palo Alto VM-Series is nice because I can move the firewalls easily."
"It is very stable. It is fairly easy to use."
"App-ID and User-ID have repeatedly shown value in securing business critical systems."
"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 Networks VM-Series is very easy to use."
"We now know a lot more detail about what our users are doing on the network."
"In four steps one can configure the entire firewall."
"Technical support is very good."
"You might try Sangfor if you are on a tight budget. The price is affordable, and Sangfor offers a lot of features. We don't have any complaints about Sangfor."
"The most valuable feature of Sangfor NGAF is its integration."
"The built-in features function as intended, providing exceptional value."
"The most valuable features are the WAN optimization, the internet access gateway (IAG), and the central console, which allows us to implement on their firewall."
"The VPN connectivity feature is really nice."
"We've found the technical support to be helpful."
"I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE."
"The feature which gives us a lot of pain is ASIC architecture."
"I think there could be more QoS features"
"Fortinet FortiGate is a stable solution. However, my issue is the performance only. When I use all the profiles, this affects the performance. From the beginning, I should have had a better sizing of the box."
"FortiLink is the interface on the firewall that allows you to extend switch management across all of your switches in the network. The problem with it is that you can't use multiple interfaces unless you set them up in a lag. Only then you can run them. So, it forces you to use a core type of switch to propagate that management out to the rest of the switches, and then it is running the case at 200. It leaves you with 18 ports on the firewall because it is also a layer-three router that could also be used as a switch, but as soon as you do that, you can't really use them. They could do a little bit more clean up in the way the stacking interface works. Some use cases and the documentation on the FortiLink checking interface are a little outdated. I can find stuff on version 5 or more, but it is hard to find information on some of the newer firmware. The biggest thing I would like to see is some improvement in the switch management feature. I would like to be able to relegate some of the ports, which are on the firewall itself, to act as a switch to take advantage of those ports. Some of these firewalls have clarity ports on them. If I can use those, it would mean that I need to buy two less switches, which saves time. I get why they don't, but I would still like to see it because it would save a little bit of space in the server rack."
"There are SD-WAN network monitoring, SD-WAN features, Industrial Databases, Internet of Things, Detection, etc., however, we do have not licenses for those features. We thought that if you bought a product, you should have all of the features it offers. Why should you need to make so many extra purchases to enable features? They should have one price for the entire offering."
"We would like to see an upgrade to the VPN feature, we are using the VPN from outside of our office and there is a limitation to 10 connections, more connections would be suitable."
"The Wi-Fi controller needs a lot of improvement."
"They made only a halfhearted attempt to put in DLP (Data Loss Prevention)."
"We feel that the setup was complex. So, we asked the tech team about the setup process. They explained how to deploy it in the right way, which made it very simple."
"The DLP functionality or data classification can be improved in the solution's basic firewalling."
"The solution's licensing could be improved, and training should be included before installation."
"The solution needs to improve its visibility. It's not straightforward to use. Understanding the policies, authorizations, and initializing features requires careful review. The product needs to offer proper training."
"I would like a way to do everything programmatically, or be able to copy the configs from different prices at different levels."
"The current licensing model can be a sore point as we're paying for features we're not fully utilizing."
"Palo Alto is that it is really bad when it comes to technical support."
"An area of improvement for Sangfor NGAF could be in the field of reporting and logging."
"The reporting and log management could be improved."
"I would be happy if Sangfor developed a firewall designed specifically for home use, as well as for small businesses such as clinics and so on. A household version of the Sangfor firewall for your personal computer or laptop would be ideal, in my opinion."
"Sangfor need greater exposer in the market because the market is mainly saturated by Fortinet. The user experience of Fortinet is quite different compared to NGAF. If we want to switch our users from Fortinet to NGAF, we have to convince them that the user experience will be much easier once once they start to use it."
"The web interface needs to be improved, making it more user-friendly."
"Sangfor NGAF could improve by refining its application control policies, especially in addressing challenges with certain types of applications."
"It does not offer any recommendations on how to mitigate or control attacks."
"The product must provide more IPS features."
Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 52 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 21st in Firewalls with 31 reviews. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sangfor NGAF writes "Affordable, easy to configure firewall with fast, responsive support". 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, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Sophos XG, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Netgate pfSense, Check Point NGFW and Fortinet FortiOS. See our Palo Alto Networks VM-Series vs. Sangfor NGAF report.
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.