Palo Alto Networks Advanced Threat Prevention Reviews

We primarily use the solution as a firewall.

It's not so easy to set up a test environment because it's not so easy to get the test license.

The vendor only gives you 90 days for a test license; it's a tough license to get.

The stability of the solution is quite good.

So far, scalability is okay, but you don't really need too much scalability in a firewall solution.

Technical support is good. We do get some support from the reseller.

We do have other solutions that we run in parallel, but it isn't like we had one solution and then we switched to Palo Alto.

The initial setup was straightforward. It's quite easy. Deployment took one to two weeks.

The pricing is a bit higher than the competition, but it's okay. The cost seems cheaper than Cisco's Firepower.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

The solution is very good, especially compared to other solutions. I would rate it nine out of ten. It also offers re-instruction detection and prevention software, which we also use in conjunction with the Threat Prevention solution.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention for approximately 10 years.

The stability of Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is good.

I have found Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention to be a scalable solution.

The support from Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention is good.

Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention could improve by having consistent pricing at system levels.

My advice to others would be to use Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention for the perimeter of the network.

I rate Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention a nine out of ten.

Our primary use cases for this solution is content fileting and threat prevention. 

The most valuable features are that it's:

• User-friendly 
• Has interesting features 
• URL filtering 
• Threat prevention. 

We use four Palo Alto solutions in stand-alone mode and but it's hard to use when I use it in Panorama. Palo Alto's maintenance needs to be improved. 

I have been using this solution for a year and a half. 

Palo Alto is quite stable. It's better than Cisco. We've had many issues with Cisco and experienced many bugs. 

We've contacted customer support. I would rate them a six out of ten. 

The deployment was straightforward. It wasn't difficult for us. 

We used a consultant for the deployment. They helped us to deploy the device. We were satisfied with their service. It's not as good as Cisco support. 

I would recommend this solution. It's stable and doesn't have many bugs. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

In order to make it a ten, they should improve their technical support. 

I find the malware protection very handy. The solution has many features that save me time. 

I think they can use some improvement on FID. There are lots of false positives and those can be eradicated. Sometimes you can't identify a 10-year-old doc, but they can probably update those signatures and false positives, so it would be helpful and save us a lot of time. 

I think the stability can improve.

We haven't used the technical support yet because we have our own team of experts.

We used an expert to help us with the initial setup and installation.

It is an expensive solution and I would like to see a drop in price.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this solution a nine. In the next version, I would like to see a drop in price and more stability.

We use the firewall in the network.

It protects us from cyber attacks.

One of the most valuable features is the anti-malware protection.

Right now we are focusing on email. If Palo Alto can increase the features related to email filtering and the new malware, it would help us protect our systems.

I think the stability is better than Fortinet or Check Point

The scalability is there, for an enterprise network or a big company. It's good. It can support many endpoints and servers. We have over 2,000 users, most of them are end-users.

Technical support is good. There are no problems with it.

Before, we used Fortinet and Check Point.

The setup is neither complex nor easy. We worked with the vendor and they have more experience than us. For the PoC they did the configuration for us and we were able to learn from them.

Our deployment took about two months.

It's not too expensive. It's a more powerful tool for IT companies that need a next-generation tool.

Its Wi-Fi feature actually attracted me a lot. Also, sandboxing can be done.

Basically, on the server side, it alerts me to threats. We are working to begin reporting on this. It affects me a lot. 

Some bugs, which will be rectified by Palo Alto in the next update.

Almost one year.

No issues. I do not have issues with stability.

For my organization, there is more than enough scalability for me. It is good for me. Exactly what I want.

Their support is very good. For some features, which I don't know. I used to address these with the technical guys. They support me very well on this. 

I used to use ASA, which is now owned by Cisco. I feel Palo Alto is more advanced and has better features than ASA. 

It is not very complex, actually. Firewalls can handle it. 

Yeah, I checked out other products, like Fortigate and Firepower. When we compared Palo Alto and FortiGate, the word from the community, which I came to know, was FortiGate was not stable. Though Palo Alto is slower than Fortigate. When we consider the long-term brands, Palo Alto is much more stable than Fortigate. 

It is one of the best services out there. 

Our primary use case for Palo Alto Threat Prevention is related to the placement of files in a laboratory test environment. We use Palo Alto Threat Prevention for network testing.

I can't give an example of how Palo Alto has improved our organization because we are using this product in test networks.

The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Threat Prevention for our company is the next generation firewall.

The organization mail security solutions could be improved. There is no mail security solution available.

Palo Alto Threat Prevention is naturally stable in operations.

I don't see a problem with Palo Alto Threat Prevention in scalability. Because it's a testing product for use it only for test alignment.

We have maybe 10 or 12 engineers dedicated to the solution. Only engineers are using this product. For deployment and maintenance, only one staff.

We use Palo Alto Threat Prevention just for testing.

Palo Alto's technical support is very good.

The setup of Palo Alto Threat Prevention is very easy and straightforward. From initial configuration to deployment, it took maybe one day.

We did not use an integrator, re-seller, or consultant for the deployment.

I would rate Palo Alto Threat Prevention a nine out of ten overall. I would prefer better mail security features.

Our primary use case is to have as a gateway.

The dimensions is one of the most valuable features. WildFire is the sandbox solution from Palo Alto. No other sandbox solution can match WildFire.

The documentation needs to be improved. I need better information about how to configure it and what the best practices are. 

We have been using Palo Alto Networks Threat Prevention for a year. 

I don't have any stability problems with Palo Alto. Palo Alto is one of the greatest products in terms of stability. Compared to other solutions, Palo Alto is the most stable. 

I think it's very scalable, but in terms of the firewall, you need to define first where the firewall is located. You can deploy it anywhere, but it really depends on the environment of the customer.

The initial setup was not so complex but not so simple. It depends on the requirements of the deployment. Sometimes it should be simple but sometimes you need more knowledge to connect the device.

The deployment can take around one month. Sometimes the project manager wants to extend the session with the customer and maybe upgrade the migration. Then he asks the customer if there are any problems or is there are any additional issues that come up after the migration. In terms of the configuration, it takes less than five days but in terms of the project, we saw more cases that took around a month.

We only need a project manager and engineer for the deployment. Some deployments require additional engineers. From our customer's side, we usually discuss the deployment with the security team. 

For those who want a next-gen firewall that's easy to configure and easy to operate, I think you should go for Palo Alto.

Palo Alto is a bit pricy compared to different models. Customers try to compare the price between other solutions, like Fortinet, Cisco, and Checkpoint. 

In the next release, I would like for Palo Alto to work on email protection. 

I would rate it a ten out of ten.