We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story
TM
Sr. Engineer at a comms service provider with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Reliable with a straightforward setup and good security features

Pros and Cons

  • "It's one of the best products I've worked with. It's typically a market leader on Gartner. It's a very respected brand."
  • "The pricing of the solution is quite high. It's one of the most expensive firewall solutions on the market."

What is our primary use case?

The solution is typically used for antivirus and antimalware purposes, to help protect an organization against attacks.

What is most valuable?

The solution offers many different capabilities.

It's one of the best products I've worked with. It's typically a market leader on Gartner. It's a very respected brand.

The solution offers very good security, especially in relation to antivirus activities.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The product is extremely reliable.

What needs improvement?

The pricing of the solution is quite high. It's one of the most expensive firewall solutions on the market.

Clients are typically looking for a solution that's more aggressive in the market.

For example, with Fortinet, they have an SD-WAN that really has many capabilities. For example, it can inject a GSL SIM card along with the MPLS connection. It connects the system within one product. Palo Alto doesn't offer this. This is one area that will need to improve. In Indonesia, the market is growing strategically. Palo Alto has this one product, however, with the limitation of the GSM sim card they are getting left behind. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I started using the solution around 2012 or 2013. It may have been eight years or so. Sometimes I am doing a POC or implementing the solution, so it has been on and off.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

While the solution itself is okay in terms of stability, there could be issues if the hardware is affected. We have hardware that gets affected by humidity, for example, which can end up affecting a wide range of infrastructure. If the environment is good, the solution will be okay. If we talking about Palo Alto's series starting from the 3,000 to 5,000 or 7,000, Palo Alto has a really stable product.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We set up this solution for companies of all sizes, from small to large enterprises. One of our clients is a telecom, which is quite sizable. They have the most complex configuration. The solution, however, is able to work for any company, no matter what the size. In that sense, it's a scalable option.

That said, the NG firewall is not a typical product that we can scale up on a whim. If we want to scale up in this product, we need to buy a higher series. We have to replace it. If we want to scale out this product, we can do a roll out in another location. Therefore, you can expand it out, however, you do need to change the sizing, which means getting a size or two up.

How are customer service and technical support?

I haven't contacted technical support recently. The last time I spoke to the tech support team was five years ago or maybe as an Operation Engineer three or five years ago. Generally, I found that they were really good at understanding the product. In my experience, they were really helpful. I'd say I was satisfied with their support.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I've also used Juniper, however, that may have been three or four years ago or so.

How was the initial setup?

In my case, I have a lot of experience with Palo Alto and the implementation process. Therefore, I don't find it too complex. It's rather straightforward for me. However, I have a long history with the solution. I find the hierarchy of the configuration fairly easy to understand, especially if you compare it to a solution such as Juniper. Juniper is a bit more complex to set up. Whereas, Palo Alto is a bit more straightforward.

How long deployment takes can vary. It really depends on the complexity of the configuration and the environment.

If a client only buys the implementation, they will have to handle the maintenance of the product. It's a good idea to have that type of person in-house.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We find the cost of the solution to be very high. It's quite expensive, and one of the most expensive on the market.

The pricing is related to the complexity of the environment. The more complex the company's requirements, the more it will cost.

What other advice do I have?

We have a partnership with Palo Alto.

I am in pre-sales and often do POCs or do some aspect of evaluating the solution for clients to help them understand the usefulness.

Overall, I really do prefer Palo Alto to other options. I'm the most comfortable with it and I understand it the best out of other solutions such as Juniper or Fortinet.

I'd suggest organizations consider the solution. Yes, it is quite expensive. However, it is also very reliable and is always marked highly in Gartner due to its feature set and usability. It's easy to configure and it's very easy to add more features into your roadmap if you need to. It can easily integrate into a larger holistic security system to help keep a company safe.

In general, I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Flag as inappropriate
SZ
Team Lead Network Infrastructure at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Stable with good performance and a fairly straightforward setup

Pros and Cons

  • "It's a next-generation firewall and it's pretty stable. You don't have to worry about if you restart it for some maintenance. It will just come back."
  • "Sometimes some of the applications the customer has do not respond as they normally should."

What is our primary use case?

The solution can be used in the data center it can be used as perimeter firewalls and gateways as well. It can be used anywhere. From the systems side, the data center side, or I typically recommend that it be deployed in a VM, as it may be able to see the internet traffic and specifically it would basically look into the details of a virtualized environment as well.

What is most valuable?

It's a next-generation firewall and it's pretty stable. You don't have to worry about if you restart it for some maintenance. It will just come back. Basically, it would come back in a straightforward manner. There are no stability issues.

The one thing that I like about Palo Alto is it's throughput is pretty straightforward. It supports bandwidth and offers throughput for the firewall.  The throughput basically decreases.

Palo Alto actually provides two throughput values. One is for firewall throughput and other is with all features. Whether you use one or all features, its throughput will be the same.

It's performance is better than other firewalls. That is due to the fact that it is based on SPD architecture, not FX. It basically provides you with the SB3 technology, a single path parallel processing. What other brands do is they have multiple engines, like an application engine and IPS engine and other even outside management engines. This isn't like that.

With other solutions, the traffic basically passes from those firewalls one after the other engine. In Palo Alto networks, the traffic basically passes simultaneously on all the engines. It basically improves the throughput and performance of the firewall. There's no reconfiguration required.

What needs improvement?

Palo Alto has all the features that any firewall should have. Other firewalls should actually copy Palo Alto so that they can provide better stability, performance, and protection - at levels that are at least at Palo-Alto's.

This isn't necessarily an issue with the product per se, however, sometimes basically there are some features, depending on the customer environment, do not work as well. Sometimes some of the applications the customer has do not respond as they normally should. Palo Alto support needs to understand the customer requirements and details so that they can resolve customer queries more effectively.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for the past six years at this point.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution offers very good stability. I don't have issues with bugs or glitches. It's reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have a variety of customers ad they all have a different amount of users. Some have 50 users. Some have 100 users. Some have 1,000 users as well. It varies quite a bit. In that sense, it scales to meet the customer's needs.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've dealt with technical support in the past. Sometimes it is good and sometimes it's not as good. It depends on the complexity of the deployment. Overall, however, I would say that I have been satisfied with the level of service provided.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

There are multiple products from different vendors, and I basically deploy different firewalls from different vendors for the customers based on their needs. The solutions I work with include Cisco, Fortinet, and WatchGuard. There are a few others as well.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup isn't too complex. It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment time basically depends on the deployment model. If it's a VMware model, it's pretty straightforward and you can basically deploy it in half an hour to one hour.

If it is in another deployment model, for example, if it's in Layer 3, it depends on the subnet environment, how many subnets they have, or how the traffic is routing from one end to the other end, etc. 

What about the implementation team?

I'm involved in system integration, so I basically deploy and manage the solution for the other customers.

What other advice do I have?

I'm an integrator. I work with many clients. My clients use both the cloud and on-premises deployment models.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations.

Overall, I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Integrator
Learn what your peers think about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: October 2021.
543,424 professionals have used our research since 2012.
JJ
Solutions Architect at a comms service provider with 51-200 employees
Reseller
Top 5
A good solution with great stability and very good Policy Optimizer feature

Pros and Cons

  • "I love the Policy Optimizer feature. I am also completely happy with its stability."
  • "Its reporting can definitely be improved. I would like to have better graphical dashboards and more widgets for more clarity in the reporting area. In a third-generation firewall, you can generate some dashboards. It provides the information that we need, but from the C-level or a higher-level perspective, it is kind of rough and incomplete. Its data loss prevention (DLP) feature is not good enough. Currently, this feature is very basic and not suitable for enterprises. It would be nice if they can include a better DLP feature like Fortinet. We would like to have a local depot of Palo Alto in Latin America. Competitors such as Cisco and Check Point have a local depot here. If there is an issue with their hardware, you can go to the depot, and in about four hours, you can get a replacement device, but that's not the case with Palo Alto Networks because we need to import from Miami. It takes about two to three weeks."

What is our primary use case?

We mainly use it for perimeter protection between the internet and the local network. We are using it for application control. We exploit the applications with some policies about how the network traffic is going to be from the local LAN to the external network and vice versa. We are protecting our network from outsiders and stopping them from getting into the network.

What is most valuable?

I love the Policy Optimizer feature. I am also completely happy with its stability.

What needs improvement?

Its reporting can definitely be improved. I would like to have better graphical dashboards and more widgets for more clarity in the reporting area. In a third-generation firewall, you can generate some dashboards. It provides the information that we need, but from the C-level or a higher-level perspective, it is kind of rough and incomplete.

Its data loss prevention (DLP) feature is not good enough. Currently, this feature is very basic and not suitable for enterprises. It would be nice if they can include a better DLP feature like Fortinet.

We would like to have a local depot of Palo Alto in Latin America. Competitors such as Cisco and Check Point have a local depot here. If there is an issue with their hardware, you can go to the depot, and in about four hours, you can get a replacement device, but that's not the case with Palo Alto Networks because we need to import from Miami. It takes about two to three weeks.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for about three years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I am completely happy with its stability. I have no issues with its stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I don't need more scalability. I can use the new features without changing the hardware. The features are completely inside the hardware, so I have no issue with the scalability. Most of our customers are big businesses.

How are customer service and technical support?

I didn't have a very complex call with their technical support.

How was the initial setup?

It depends. It can be complex when we are replacing a solution with Palo Alto Networks and the customer doesn't know how the policy is going to be implemented in the solution. If that is not the case and it is a clean installation, it is very straightforward. It is not at all complex.

The deployment generally takes a whole week. This includes the planning stage and doing the initial setup. It takes about two days to set up a device, power it on, and turn on the policies.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

It is an expensive solution.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Our clients compare it with Check Point. Palo Alto Network has the application granularity. It enables you to handle the applications, policies, and Policy Optimizer. There is no need for splitting the management plane and the processing plane. In Check Point, you need two devices. You need one device for the management and one for the gateway. Palo Alto has both in one, which is a good feature.

Check Point is a kind of cheaper solution, and we can deploy that application on open servers. The open servers option in Check Point has a huge cost-saving. In terms of performance, I will always choose Palo Alto Network because its IPS feature is superior to Check Point. It is much better than Check Point.

What other advice do I have?

First of all, I would say that the engineer who is going to deploy the solution has to know how the network policy is going to be introduced into the firewall. It is very important for deployment because it is a new concept that Palo Alto introduced in the market. The second thing is to know the policies, not on the layer-4 basis, but in terms of policies, such as SMB, DSTP, and other such things.

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

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Reseller
Flag as inappropriate
Khawaja AhsanZia
Network Security Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 20
Ability to log each and every application provides valuable control

Pros and Cons

  • "Ability to log each and every application."
  • "With new features and applications you get bugs."

What is our primary use case?

I'm a network security engineer and we are platinum partners with Palo Alto. 

What is most valuable?

Initially, there were no application controls offered in the legacy firewall. Now you can log each and every application. It provides valuable control and is the main feature in addition to the security features they're currently offering. All the firewalls - Fortinet, Cisco, Palo Alto -  provide complete visibility and control over your network which you didn't previously have. Now you have user ID and you can implement URL filtering as well, there is control over your network. End user logging is far better with Palo Alto than Fortinet or Cisco, and it helps you to troubleshoot. I'd rate Palo Alto on top. It's comfortable and that's my experience. Cisco and Fortinet provide good services, but Palo Alto offers a very good product.

What needs improvement?

There will always be room for improvement. On a daily basis you get patches for everything. They build new features, apply new technologies and new applications which need to be integrated and with that you get bugs. There are always issues, whether it's hardware or software. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using this solution for five years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The product is generally stable but with each new update you need to get the OS bug fix. Any security device has a vulnerability which a hacker can exploit and you have to keep on patching.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I work on the system integrator side and work with multiple customers, and this is a scalable solution. 

How are customer service and technical support?

The support level is good, but it depends on the region you're working from. In some countries, the support flexibility is very good. For others, you have different strategies. I'm in Pakistan and Palo Alto has a different strategy here in that they don't directly provide support. You have to add another vendor in between and open a case with them and if they can't resolve your query they activate to Palo Alto. In some countries, Palo Alto directly provides support and in others they can't be contacted directly. In a couple of scenarios, we got involved with an R&D team and told them there was a bug for our end users. Palo Alto escalated that case to an R&D team and they got it fixed in the following patches.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is a very smooth process integrated with initial configuration. It's very easy. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

You could say that the cost is higher for Palo Alto, but they are a better product compared to the other principals. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I work with Fortinet as well as Palo Alto. Palo Alto has very extensive logging that Fortinet doesn't offer. To get that with Fortinet you need to purchase FortiAnalyzer for reporting. The logging is so extensive in Palo Alto that you can generate a report and get an analysis on the same firewall. You don't need to procure anything else. The documentation of both Fortinet and Palo Alto is up to standard. They both have very extensive documentation for their products. Both of them offer the same level of knowledge base for their customers and are up to the mark. In terms of support, Fortinet and Cisco allow you to directly open a case and get an engineer on the line. Cisco follows the same model. I'm unable to do that with Palo Alto from Pakistan. 

What other advice do I have?

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: partner
JH
Technology Manager at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Easy for clients to connect to their information

Pros and Cons

  • "They have a good system operator in the firewalls and it provides many tools that they can use to protect their networks."
  • "Maybe they could add some tools and more competing services, like servers, but that would increase the cost of the solution."

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use case is for the perimeter connection of our clients in the network. Our client brings their services to their clients, and they have the option to connect to a webpage. With Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls they can safely provide a username and password to their clients.

It is mainly on-premise, because the majority of the clients at this point want that kind of option. But many of them are already asking for the cloud option, like Prisma, for example.

How has it helped my organization?

It has improved our clients' organizations because previously the clients did not have the option to fully connect. In this solution, they have the opportunity to add services to their web page and book clients.

What is most valuable?

The feature that I have found most valuable is the connection. It's very easy for the clients to connect to their information. They use an SSL connection by BPM.

What needs improvement?

We work very closely with the vendors here and at this point they use external support.

Maybe they could add some tools and more competing services, like servers, but that would increase the cost of the solution.

For how long have I used the solution?

My company has been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for almost one year. It is new for us. We have more experience with Cisco and Fortinet.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

In my company, I am responsible for the development of the proposal that we give to the client. We develop the spectrum and the pricing. We make presentations to the customer to explain the solution and answer questions about it.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is very strong. The vendor provides has high availability.

Our clients are medium sized businesses.

Palo Alto is not a cheap solution. It is expensive. But because of its technology it pays itself back. In each case we work with the vendor to obtain a major discount for their business. I give that discount to our customer, who benefit from the services that we can bring them.

How are customer service and technical support?

This is our first dealing with Palo Alto. With other vendors we have more experience, like with Cisco and Fortinet.

Palo Alto's documentation and manuals are very complete. It's very easy to obtain the information that way.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

The client still uses Cisco, Fortinet, and Checkpoint. Palo Alto has very good administration tools which is not the case with the others. You can't compare all vendors. Also, the granularity of the information that they can obtain from the firewalls is better.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup depends. In the case of one client, for example, they have a very complex connection of networks, which is architectural. It is integrated and we need to pick it out and include all the rules that they have and to put in the firewalls which they want to buy in the next month. That kind of job is not easy for us, not just regarding Palo Alto but for other vendors, too.

What other advice do I have?

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls a nine.

I would recommend this product to others.

In terms of what advice I would give to future customers looking into implementing Palo Alto Firewalls, I would tell them that they have a good system operator in the firewalls and that it provides many tools that they can use to protect their networks. You don't find that in the other vendors.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
MV
Network Administrator at a healthcare company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 5
Great protection without requiring a special dedicated network team; saves us a lot of time

Pros and Cons

  • "Protection from a single packet and ease of making security rules."
  • "It's not so easy to scale out your security capabilities."

What is our primary use case?

We have two 3000 Series Firewalls placed in our primary location. We have two sites and the secondary site uses the primary site for internet access. All traffic to the secondary location goes through a VPN tunnel. I'm a network administrator. 

What is most valuable?

The value of this solution for me is the protection from a single packet and ease of making security rules. It also doesn't require a special dedicated network team, I'm able to do it myself. It's a time saver for me and now in this pandemic period, users have access from home.  

What needs improvement?

I'd like to see some changes to the licensing policies and, on the technical side, improvement in scalability. It's not so easy to scale out your security capabilities. With the situation in business today, everybody lacks money and if you have to increase your resources and to constantly pay more for that, it becomes a problem. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using this solution for 10 years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's been 10 years and I don't remember any outages because of a hardware failure or a logical error in configuration. We had problems with servers or switches initially but it works like a charm now. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is the main disadvantage of Palo Alto. They call themselves a firewall with router capabilities but it's not a router and it requires a good bandwidth in VPN which could become a problem because you have to scale to really big hardware. We can solve the issue with other solutions, but for me the idea is to have less devices in your environment.
It's all about the hardware.  

How are customer service and technical support?

The support is quite good. A couple of months ago, I sent an email with an issue and we got an answer in 15-20 minutes. In my experience, Palo Alto support is one of the best, maybe the best support available.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We previously used Juniper which is currently called Net Screen. I also looked at Sonic Wall. We carried out a proof of concept five years ago and they had to decide whether to go with Palo Alto or another vendor. 

How was the initial setup?

For me, the initial setup is very easy. To get the device running with some capabilities but maybe not all security rules takes about an hour and it's the same for any upgrades. We have around 900 users and one admin person from our organization who deals with any issues. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Palo Alto is an expensive solution, we currently have a three year contract. I'm not sure what our terms are. People always want cheaper, nobody wants to pay more. In our region, I think if Palo Alto was cheaper, more companies would buy the solution. 

What other advice do I have?

I would absolutely recommend this product, it's expensive but I trust it. There is always room for improvement such as with scalability capabilities in Palo Alto. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this is an issue. It's possible that next time we will try virtualized firewalls, it may be a little cheaper for us. We would consider switching to something else but it would be a big move and quite complicated. Moving to a different vendor is a whole other story.

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
AM
Information Security Specialist at UAEU
Real User
Great firewalling protection up to the application level; easily configured with good reporting

Pros and Cons

  • "Provision of quality training material and the reporting is very good."
  • "Need improvement with their logs, especially the command line interface."

What is our primary use case?

We are basically using a double protection layer in which we take care of all our DMV, VPN, tunnels, and internal network. We are basically using it for application based configuration  controlling our traffic on applications with layers four to seven. We are customers of Palo Alto and I'm an information security specialist. 

What is most valuable?

I like the training material they provide and the reporting is very good. The solution is very easy to configure, and very easy to understand and explain. Compared to firewalls offered by their competitors, I find it easier to use and more thorough. The most important thing the solution provides is, of course, the firewalling up to the application level.

What needs improvement?

There could be improvement with their logs, especially their CLI. When you go to the command line to understand the command line interface it's tricky and requires a deep understanding of the product. We recently faced one issue where the server side configuration changed and it wasn't replicated at the firewall. It required us to tweak things and now it is working fine. Finally, the HIPS and audio call features could be improved. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using this solution for two years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

In the past two years I haven't had any issues with the stability. That applies to the hardware, software, upgrades, updates, new feeds. I haven't faced any big issue, you can say that. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We are using their big boxes, like the 7,000 series. So it's already at that level. We're already using 120 GB, like three 40 gigs and it's working fine for us. You can scale as you wish.
We have over 10,000 people using the service through this firewall. It's working 24/7 and it's been that way for the past two and a half years. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is not complex. It took us 15 to 20 days because we were migrating from the other firewall. The strategy was to take the backup and simultaneously create a leg and transfer to that. The first time we deployed, we used the integrator recommended by the vendor. That worked very well. Our team worked with the integrator. We planned everything and they supervised us. 

We currently have four people helping with maintenance. They are security admins and their job is with the firewalls, like configuring and maintaining and upgrading all those things. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Yes, we evaluated other options. Cisco was there, as was FortiGate. We were using Juniper at that time, and then Palo Alto came into picture. We carried out a comparison of pricing, support, features, etc. and then we made our choice. It was really the next generation features and application level security that were key to our decision. 

What other advice do I have?

The advice I can give is that this is a good solution: Easy to deploy, easy to manage, easy to understand, reporting is very good, and it will give you the full picture up to the layer seven. Their VPN service is very good. 

The good thing is that whenever you need to train anyone on these devices, it's very easy to explain. Previous firewalls I've used, required a lot more work before you could configure. This isn't like that, it takes maybe 30 minutes and it's done. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
IK
Security Expert at a aerospace/defense firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
All of the policies configured are related to the application and not to a port

Pros and Cons

  • "The strengths of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are application visibility and application awareness. Their strong point is identifying applications for traffic. So all of the policies that are configured are related to the application and not to a port."
  • "This solution cannot be implemented on-premises; it's only a cloud solution. The price is high as well."

What is our primary use case?

We deployed the Palo Alto Next Generation Firewall on the perimeter of the network, so all traffic that flows to the company from the internet and from the company to the internet scanned by the Palo Alto Networks Firewall. In addition, all of the internal traffic from LAN users to services that are on the DMZ zone traverse the Palo Alto Firewall.

What is most valuable?

The strengths of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls are application visibility and application awareness. Their strong point is identifying applications for traffic. So all of the policies that are configured are related to the application and not to a port.

For example, let's say you want to allow HTTP traffic and the server is not listening on the standard http port which port 80 but listens on port 25 which Is the standard port for SMTP, this is not an obstacle has the firewall is focusing on the application, it identify the HTTP application and allow the HTTP application and block any other application on port 25. So we don't care on which port the app traverses.

It is easy to install and is stable too.

What needs improvement?

There is another solution from Palo Alto for endpoints - XDR  that integrates with the firewall  thus providing protection at the network level and also at the end point but the XDR solution is only a cloud based solution. I would really like it if would be possible to implement this solution on-premises this is something that I would love to see with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls.

The price could be lower.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've worked with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls within the last 12 months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

So far, it's stable. I haven't had any problem with it. I'm always authorizing to have the minor version aligned with the latest version. There haven't been any published vulnerabilities with the product so far.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I'm using the cluster, and that's a great long term solution. So I haven't needed to expand.

There are more than 10,000 employees in the company. We hope to migrate the other branches that have a different vendor to Palo Alto.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward from my point of view.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

From a financial perspective, this solution is quite expensive.

The licensing is on a yearly basis even though we close the deal for three years upfront.

What other advice do I have?

I would advise that those thinking about Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls need to switch how they think about a policy on the firewall. They should not to look at it from the point of view of the service and what port that policy is related to. Instead, they should look at it from the application side. Don't pay too much attention to the port. Just look at the application. For example, the NGFW doesn't care if SMTP traverses on port 25 or 65. It just enforces the protocol.

From a technical point of view, I don't think that there's something that's missing from the Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. So, I would rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Product Categories
Firewalls
Buyer's Guide
Download our free Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.