Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and License Cost

Solutions Architect at a comms service provider with 501-1,000 employees
Palo Alto is a little expensive compared to every other solution, but you get what you pay for. The question I have been asking customers since I became a solutions architect is what the best in security is worth. The problem with people seeking security solutions is thinking that all solutions are the same, thinking the newest technology solutions are best and thinking cost-first. A better way to think about it would be how expensive a break-in is. If I am shopping around for a firewall solution and I see I have to pay a lot per year for Palo Alto and I see Meraki is a much lower price, I might be attracted by the less expensive product. When it is deployed, we get broken into and lose $10 million worth of design documents. It may be quite possible that break-in could have been avoided by paying more for a better security solution. Because I went the cheap route, I lost many times what I 'saved.' For possibilities like this alone, it is hard to put a price on security. Take a deeper look at what happens when you try to save money on security. Meraki does SD-WAN (Software-defined Wide Area Network). That is touted as fantastic because the client is going to save a whole lot of money because they don't need MPLS (Multi-Protocol Label Switching) anymore. But the reality behind it is, there is absolutely no application acceleration, no data deduplication, and no forward error correction. Forward error correction is extremely important when you're using a device between points. But Meraki sells its devices for nickels or pennies on the dollar in comparison to other security solutions. Only then you only learn the lesson of what happens when you go cheap. Your network gets broken into more easily because of the inherent exposure in SD-WAN and it goes down a lot. If you have sales offices and those sales offices have Meraki firewalls, the device may observe a problem out on the internet. When it does, the Meraki's failover results in an outage. With Meraki, failover to a better link takes 30-seconds. Whether it is a 30-minute failover or 30-second failover, you can drop a call. If you are cold calling and you dropped a call, you don't get a second chance. It is impossible to say how much money you might lose. For example, if my company sells microchips and that call was going to develop into a $40 million sale, that sale is gone. It is gone because of the small comparative cost savings in security and the instability of the solution you chose to use. But a 30-second outage every single time a route is withdrawn across the internet means your phone is going to ring if you are the IT Director, and you will eventually lose your job. The costs for Palo Alto are structured in a similar way to other products. With Palo Alto you can do one, two, three and five years contracts. It is the same thing with Fortinet and Meraki. Hardware cost is very different than the application license. The hardware maintenance agreement is separate. With all of the firewall solutions, you will pay for a hardware maintenance agreement. That protects the hardware itself. That is an annual billing and separate from the software in all cases. Nobody bills for firewalls on a monthly basis. Even the VM version of the Palo Alto is billed per year. Using that license, you can build up a VPN that forces all default traffic to a particular device before it goes out to the internet. It is comparatively pretty cheap in practice, and it works. It works well because you only need one piece of hardware. Build the server and start slicing out VMs. Then it becomes possible for everybody in a network to be protected by Palo Altos security at a lower cost. View full review »
Jonny Su
IS&S Europe and Global Infrastructure Manager at a manufacturing company with 10,001+ employees
It's a bit pricey. View full review »
Mark Gleghorn
President at MT-Data
I know the solution is not inexpensive. It depends on what you ultimately sign up for or whether you just want the warranty on the hardware. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: January 2021.
455,536 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Mahmoud Salaheldin
Security Unit Manager at EEMC
In terms of pricing, every model has a license. For example a small model, the license around 1,000 USD. The next one around 2,000 USD. The next range is 11,000 USD to 13,000 USD. It's expensive compared to PaloAlto competitors. View full review »
Leandro Cardoso
Information Security Consultant at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
I am not aware of the prices, but based on the feedback, it seems a little bit more expensive as compared to other solutions. Its cost could be a reason why people don't choose Palo Alto. View full review »
Khawaja AhsanZia
Network Security Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
You could say that the cost is higher for Palo Alto, but they are a better product compared to the other principals. View full review »
MIhajlo MItev
System Administrator at a mining and metals company with 51-200 employees
It is a little bit expensive than other firewalls, but it is worth every penny. There are different licenses for the kinds of services you want to use. When we buy a new product, we go for a three-year subscription. View full review »
Security Presales Solutions Architect at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
It is a little bit expensive. View full review »
It will be worth your time to hire a contractor to set it up and configure it for you, especially if you are not very knowledgeable with PA firewalls. View full review »
Rakesh Rawat
Network Engineer at Acliv Technologies Pvt Ltd
Pricing is yearly, but it depends. You could pay on a yearly basis or every three years. If you want to add a device or two, there would be an additional cost. Also, if you want to do an assessment or another similar add-on you have to pay accordingly for the additional service. View full review »
Kamlesh Ridhorkar
Sr. Solution Architect at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees
The pricing of the solution is quite high. It's too expensive, considering there's so much competition in the space. There aren't extra costs on top of the standard licensing policy. Still, Palo Alto seems to be adding some premium costs that competitors just don't have. View full review »
Partner Alliance Director at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
The licensing is paid on a yearly basis. The pricing could be better, however, the cost depends on the sizing of the product. The pricing, therefore, varies from company to company for the most part. View full review »
Vice President & Head Technology Transition at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
I think, if you compare, they're a little costly next to Cisco of Check Point, but they offer a lot of other additional features to look at. The licensing is annual, and there aren't any additional fees on top of that. View full review »
Vice President and Head - IT Telecom, Software License Management and Collaboration at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
The pricing is competitive in the market. View full review »
Antonio El Khoury
System Engineer at IRIS
This is an expensive product, which is why some of our customers don't adopt it. View full review »
Jean Maurice Prosper
Chief Executive Officer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
I would advise anyone to go ahead and understand exactly what they need. It's not because Palo Alto's cost is a little less. Depending on use, it's expensive. So they should understand the requirements first, before going with Palo Alto. View full review »
Aleksandar Jovanovic
System Engineer at E-smart systems
If you have some network experience then you can set it up on your own, with no setup costs. Don't buy a device with more power than you really need, because licensing depends on the cost of the box you have. View full review »
Senior Technical Consultant at Exclusive GRP
Licensing is on a three year basis. Customers prefer one to three years. Licencing is pretty expensive. Check Point is cheaper than Palo Alto. There's also an international license. If a customer wants to control different things, they will need an extra license. View full review »
Senior Network Engineer at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Palo Alto is more expensive in comparison to Fortinet and other firewalls. It's okay because they do provide quality. View full review »
Infrastructure Architect at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
The NG firewall is an expensive solution. View full review »
Sales Engineer at a wholesaler/distributor with 51-200 employees
At our company, we sell the solution for another vendor, and they sell to another vendor. So our pricing is more expensive than other vendors. View full review »
Thameem Ansari
Solution Architect at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
This is an expensive product and there is a subscription cost. View full review »
CIO/CTO at a manufacturing company with 501-1,000 employees
Palo Alto is more affordable than some competing products, such as Check Point. View full review »
Jan Hammer
Marine Consultant/Captain/Senior DPO at Jan Arild Hammer
Its price can be better. Licensing is on a yearly basis. View full review »
Partner at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Annually, the licensing costs are too much. View full review »
Learn what your peers think about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: January 2021.
455,536 professionals have used our research since 2012.