Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

In manufacture, we use this solution as a firewall and an internal gateway. Additionally, we use it for traffic control which keeps strategic traffic separate from production traffic.

The technology's very good. We have had a lot of good experience with this solution. We have done a lot of implementation for our clients and we have not had a lot of problems with this solution.

For an upcoming release, they could improve on the way to build security rules per user. Palo Alto has this functionality but in implementation, we had some problem. This functionality should be better in our opinion.

I have been using the solution for more than seven years.

In my experience, the stability is very good. 

We have more than 700 people using the solution in my company.

We have had a good experience with technical support.

We have used FortiGate in the past and we prefer this one.

The setup was complex.

Depending on the project, specific environment, and performance the deployment could take some time.

With the licensing we pay for it annually, the price could be cheaper.

If someone looking for stability and the leader in next-generation firewall technology, I would choose this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a ten out of ten.

We primarily use the product for web browsing and in order to protect some sites that we are publishing to the web internet.

The solution is very helpful in controlling spam.

The product offers very good web content control and various aspects of security.

The stability of the product has been good over the years.

The initial setup is very easy. Compared to Cisco or other solutions, Palo Alto is very easy to implement and administer. They are both very easy.

I can't recall a feature that was missing. It's a pretty complete solution.

The cost of the device is very high.

To buy license support is very slow. For renewing devices and products, it's slow in terms of contacting and activating upgraded devices.

I've been using the solution for four years at this point. It's been a while. We've been using it over the last 12 months as well.

The stability is excellent. It's reliable. We don't deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Overall, it's been very good in terms of performance.

We have not proven the scalability yet. We're planning to extend our office within the next year or six months to eight months. We are buying some appliances for the process of extending our office.

Currently, around 1,000 people use this solution.

We've never been in touch with technical support. Having never dealt with them, I wouldn't be able to speak to how they are in terms of services.

We also use Barracuda and Cisco for certain aspects of security.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's quite easy to implement.

The deployment takes about one week, or maybe a bit less, depending on the requirements. That includes both implementing and training.

Currently, two people are required for deployment and maintenance of the product

We implement the solution with our network team. We implement the solution ourselves. We don't need the help of integrators or consultants.

The pricing is quite high on Palo Alto.

On the lower end, it's likely to cost $15,000 for renovation and support.

We evaluated Cisco, Juniper, and Dell among other solutions before ultimately choosing this solution. Cisco can be complex in terms of device management compared to other options, for example. Cisco can be cheaper than Palo Alto, but that is not always the case.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. We use a physical appliance.

We're using three different models, for the most part.

My company is an outsourcing company that deploys software and testing.

The solution is very user-friendly and easy to manage and administrate. For that reason, I would rate the product at a nine out of ten.

Solutions like firewalls and routers improve any company. If you don't have them, then I wouldn't be doing business with you. 

Palo Alto has embedded machine learning in the core of the firewall to provide inline, real-time attack prevention. That's big. We're embedding that type of security and information into every part of our corporate network as well as our products.

It has helped to reduce downtime in our organization. The savings are probably in single digits.

I typically get involved with it when it comes to audit and compliance and having to gather evidence of those firewalls, routers, and rule sets. The evidence that I typically need is there.

We got a lot of integrations into it, but I don't know if it integrates with all.

I don't deal with it from a day-to-day perspective, but I can say that the evidence that I typically need is there, but sometimes, it's a task to actually get it and pull it out. They can make it easier to gather that evidence. From our NetOps team's perspective also, they can make it easier to manage and constantly update those rule sets.

I don't know for how long exactly we have been using this solution, but I've been aware that we've had them probably since about 2016 or 2017.

It's very stable. They are highly ranked within their space.

It's a good product for securing all types of workplaces. It's specifically good for data centers, which are all brick-and-mortar houses. Small businesses must also have it because they don't have the ability to have everything in a cloud or virtualized firewalls and other things like that.

I haven't dealt with their support team.

I was not involved in its initial deployment.

I am able to gather some of the evidence and things that I need. Our NetOps team uses it heavily, and they love it.

I would assume that it's still within mid-range given its company structure and everything else. My guess is it's still okay.

To someone at another company who says, “We are just looking for the cheapest and fastest firewall,” I would say that you just lost the customer because I'm not going to do business with somebody who is going for the cheapest. I'm always looking for a vendor or customer that has more input and cares about the security of their systems.

The value received from attending an RSA Conference includes prizes and other things, but on a personal level, I love the tech talks, knowing about a lot of industry changes, and different product solutions being showcased.

RSAC definitely has an impact on our organization’s cybersecurity purchases made throughout the year. One of my main roles is vendor due diligence, so I come to RSA quite often, and I have conversations with many different sales engineers who can explain the security of their products because that's what I focus on during our onboarding process. 

Overall, I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls as Foundry Network devices, but we also use them to filter internal network traffic.

I don't believe there is a significant difference. It is similar to any Google firewall product in that it works as long as they are reliable.

The most important part of this solution is its reliability, as it just works without any fancy features. Users are mainly concerned about their ability to function consistently and dependably.

I believe that companies could potentially gain an advantage by leveraging their engineers' familiarity with certain interfaces. Typically, the familiarity factor plays a significant role in product selection, and if they have experience using certain interfaces, they are more likely to opt for those products.

In terms of the interface, I don't feel there is any distinction between this vendor and others. I believe that familiarity with the products itself is an important consideration.

With the use cases that I am familiar with, I don't believe that additional features would be of any benefit. 

Adding more features generally causes more issues. I would prefer they focus on improving reliability rather than adding new features.

My preference would be to exclude machine learning since it must be capable of explanation. This is really important to us, and the performance must also be highly predictable. If it is implemented, at the very least, the option to disable it completely must be available.

In my view, machine learning is often a bothersome addition that can potentially compromise security by allowing unauthorized traffic to pass through undetected. 

From my experience, this tends to occur in networks where all the traffic is clearly defined.

Enhancements could potentially be made to the firmware to improve its inspectability.

In my current job, I have been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for three years.

In my experience, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have been a stable solution.

It has been as scalable as you would expect.

I have experience working on both small office networks as well as larger ones spanning multiple locations, typically around three to five locations.

I have worked with a range from small office setups with around fifty devices to larger ones with a scale of maybe a thousand, two thousand, or even five thousand devices.

I have experience with quite a lot of other vendors.

In my opinion, I find the configuration of this product more appealing than that of Cisco, but ultimately, it comes down to the preference of the organization's administrators. In terms of features, I don't see a significant difference between them; they all seem pretty standard to me.

I find their syntax more appealing, especially for the command line.

 I am rarely involved in the deployment.

When assessing firewalls for securing data centers consistently and across all workspaces or places, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are suitable products. 

From my experience, they have demonstrated excellent performance.

While it may not necessarily decrease downtime, it also doesn't cause any increase in downtime.

Attending events like RSA has proven to be quite beneficial for me in terms of meeting new people and discovering interesting products. These events generated new contacts and partnerships for my organization.

I believe that we will likely evaluate and purchase at least one of the products in the near future.

It's a decent product, I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight out of ten.

I design networks for our customers; I always use a high-speed packet filter upfront because I work for a Juniper partner company. This is usually a Juniper SRX series firewall and it does most of the easy work. Behind that, I add a more intelligent firewall, Palo Alto NGFW. We are partnered with Palo Alto, but that's not the main reason we use their solution. I worked with Check Point products for four years, and the Palo Alto alternative seriously impressed me. Here in Hungary, Palo Alto is considered the de facto intelligent firewall, for good reason.

I work for an integrator and support company, and I support our customer's security platforms; we have many customers with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

The firewalls improved our organization. Creating firewall rules is much simpler. The solution is so straightforward that customers can configure it themselves, and they rarely call us for that, which is great for us as a support company. It makes our job much easier as Palo Alto NGFWs don't require a security specialist to configure; it can be done by systems engineers or IT support staff. 

All the features are valuable, but my main one is the straightforward and well-designed GUI. I'm over 50 and have been in this business since the internet started. I'm not a GUI guy; I prefer using the command line. The product's GUI is excellent, and so is the threat intelligence. It's also straightforward to configure and flexible. The solution even has good networking, such as VLAN and subinterfaces, which is great because, in my experience, if the firewall is good, then the router usually isn't and vice-versa, but Palo Alto has both.

We use the on-premises solution, and it's very impressive; both flexible and intelligent. The machine learning functionality is excellent, and I love the product as a support guy because it makes my job much easier. I have very little troubleshooting, and our customers haven't had a single security incident since implementing Palo Alto. I'm deeply impressed with this solution.

The machine learning against evolving threats works well. The best thing I can say is that none of our customers have had any security issues; I can't find any problems with the solution.

The support is outstanding; we are always alerted about potential issues such as bugs in advance, so we have time to adapt and prepare. Palo Alto has grown more effective; most importantly, there haven't been any security issues. I would give the product a 10 out of 10 for flexibility and at least a seven for security. I can't say precisely what security threats our customers face, but nothing has gotten through.

The solution provides a unified platform, which is essential because there is a significant shortage of experienced IT specialists in Hungary and elsewhere. Their effectiveness is amplified by the quality and straightforward nature of the solution, and the result is more robust security.

I don't have a direct view of our customer's security threats as it is privileged information, but I can say that there have been no security breaches. I would say the solution does eliminate security holes. 

Our Palo Alto firewalls have the zero-delay signature feature implemented, and it works fine. There haven't been any issues with us or any of our customers. This feature makes the whole security system more efficient. 

The network performance is top-notch; I would give it a 10 out of 10. Intelligent firewalls tend to be slower, but this solution is fast. Previously, I used a simple packet filter or zone-based packet filter in conjunction with an intelligent firewall, but Palo Alto is fast and secure enough for standalone use. I've been familiar with the solution's architecture from the beginning, and it's a very nice platform.

I recommend this solution to any engineer; technically speaking, it's the best product on the market. I know it isn't the cheapest, and decisions are often made on a financial level, but Palo Alto in Hungary always gives us a good deal. 

The solution's VPN, called GlobalProtect, could be improved as I've had a few issues with that. 

It can be challenging to migrate configurations between Palo Alto firewalls or restart with a backup configuration using the CLI. That could be improved. I think I'm one of the only people still using the CLI over the GUI, so that's just a personal issue.

I have been working with the solution for four years.

The solution is incredibly stable.

We work with hardware platforms, and they are usually slightly over designed to be on the safe side. The virtual firewall is highly customizable, but I have experience with the hardware platforms, and there is an upper limit on those, but I haven't had any scaling issues thus far.

In Hungary, where I live, the population is 10 million, similar to London. When I say we have 1000 end-users, it may seem like a small number, but that's relatively high for Hungary. Other vendors also supply the solution here, so 1000 is just our customers.

I mostly do deployments and maintenance alone. There are three systems engineers at our company.

The customer service and support are good. I have full support when I have a problem, and they can even do remote assistance. We had a big power failure, and the firewall didn't restart; they provided a hardware expert over the phone to solve the problem. They are very impressive. I would say Juniper offers the best support, but Palo Alto is almost as good, if not just as good for me.

Positive

I have been in this business from the beginning, so I used most firewall solutions. I focused on Cisco for 15 years, but that changed due to license-based selling in a very price-sensitive market. Cisco is not as viable an option as it used to be as customers consider it too expensive. I also used a Check Point solution, which was regarded as the go-to intelligent firewall five years ago, but now Palo Alto has taken that top spot. 

We are partners with several providers, including Juniper, Palo Alto, and a few others, but I always go with Palo Alto because it's a straightforward solution with easy installation.

The setup is easy; it's straightforward for anyone with basic networking and security knowledge. It's comparable to setting up a firewall at home, which is very impressive. It's still easy with very complex network setups, only the VPN concentrator, GlobalProtect, is more challenging, as it requires two-factor authentication, but it's still straightforward.

Initial setup time depends on the specific implementation, but we can do a new deployment in one or two days. It is more complicated when migrating from other platforms because the customer expects the same logic and features in the new platform. Palo Alto has an excellent marketing strategy, so their customers know their product uses a unique logic. This helps keep the implementation straightforward and shorter compared to other solutions. 

My implementation strategy begins with a plan for the customer's network based on their needs. Then I set up all the networking parameters and configure the solution in my lab device, so I can export it and import it on-site. Every setup begins in our lab, as it's more impressive to go to the customer and import the configuration right away. 

I don't know about the price of the platform or the license fees, as the finance department deals with that. I only bill for the materials involved in the design.

I don't know about the price. When there's a new project, I go to the meeting, but after a point, all the engineers leave when it comes to money because it's not our business. I know Palo Alto offers good discounts for the partners, and the solutions are good. They offer free trials and win many customers because it allows them to test products and see how well they perform.

The only thing I can say is it's a top technology. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Cloud-based solutions are very unpopular in Eastern Europe, only private clouds are used, but on-premises is the favored deployment method. We use cloud solutions at home and for small companies or companies with particular use cases. I implemented the solution for a customer, and my first task was to disable all cloud-related features. It's exceedingly difficult to find a financial or government institution using a cloud-based platform; this market segment tends to have a more conservative mentality.

I don't use the solution personally, but I'm the first-level troubleshooter. If I can't solve a problem, I open a ticket to Palo Alto's customer support.

I have clients who used separate firewalls and VPN concentrators, but after switching to this solution, they now use the Palo Alto firewall and its VPN, GlobalProtect. I don't think it's the best VPN concentrator, it's an excellent firewall, but the weak point is the VPN.

I advise reading the documentation before configuring, which goes for any platform.

We plan to continue using this solution. Within our organization, there are roughly 1,000 employees using this solution.

We chose Palo Alto for its security features. It's quite nice. It's very user-friendly, powerful, and there are barely any bugs. 

We have been using this solution for roughly two years.

This solution is very stable.

The scalability of the firewalls could be improved. You can't scale the physical firewalls because Palo Alto doesn't support clustering. 

The support could be improved. They could be faster.

They have a multi-layer model of support. If we're experiencing any issues, we have to go to our local partner. If our local partner can't help, then we have to go through a distribution layer that's certified from Palo Alto. If our issues can't be fixed, they will escalate them to the vendor. This can be quite annoying, to be honest.

With Cisco, for example, you can open a ticket directly with the vendors themselves, and they can escalate it internally, which is much faster.

We used to use Juniper Firewalls.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

We deployed this solution with some help from our local partners. Overall, deployment took a couple of days. A team of three deployed this solution.

This solution is quite expensive.

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

It is our edge appliance. We use it for our edge security, and we also use it for our VPN termination.

We're using an old version of this solution. At this moment, I'm looking at migrating away from Palo Alto.

The ease of use and the ease of configuration of our policies are the most valuable features.

Palo Alto could do better with integrating the Palo Alto Next-Gen Firewall with SD-WAN.

The biggest issue with Palo Alto is that they are expensive. They are very expensive for what they offer. They should improve their pricing.

I have been using this solution for six or seven years.

We have about a thousand users.

We have third-party support.

I used Cisco ASA.

Its installation was pretty straightforward. There were no problems there.

Deployment duration is difficult to tell because there is a whole world of planning and other things. It probably took a couple of days. You are, of course, always tweaking these things.

I haven't installed it here, but where I was before, we had two people doing it. I and a colleague did it ourselves.

It is expensive.

There are multiple firewalls out there. I am moving away from them because they are expensive, and they don't do what I want to do with them. I have plans of getting FortiGate instead.

I would rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a six out of ten.

The most valuable features of this solution are all of the services it provides. 

The application layer to the hardware Layer is good, as are all layers it offers.

It's a very comprehensive solution.

The features should be built into the system. For example, it generates many logs with a lot of information that can be converted into security and business information and shown to the user. This is a time-consuming job.

I would like to see it provide us with intelligent information from the data that it captures, within the same cost.

I have been using this solution for two years.

It's a very stable product, so far.

It's very scalable. We have 300 users in our company.

Technical support is very good.

We have worked with various firewalls such as Check Point, Sophos, Cisco, and some unknown product names as well.

There are several things to consider before recommending a solution. It depends on the business requirements, the budget, and the complexity of the security needs.

I believe that Palo Alto is the best one, then Check Point and Sophos. Those are my three preferences.

Palo Alto and Check Point would be rated an eight out of ten and the others would be a seven out of ten.

The initial setup is complex, but it can be done.

The rollout takes a couple of weeks but you have to keep improving it every day.

Part of the setup was completed by me, with some help externally.

We have a subcontractor for maintenance.

This is an expensive product, as are the others of this type.

Know your business requirements, the features, the ease of use, and know what type of budget you have. These are the types of requirements to know before you use this product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.