Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Reviews

I like the architecture because it separates the management plan process and the data plan process. When I perform something CPU-intensive on management configurations, it doesn't disturb the data plan.

On the data plan, it uses parallel processing. This makes the security process and network process is more efficient.

I think visibility can be improved. If I use the Panorama monitoring dashboard, it's still the same with or without Panorama. Even with monitoring, we don't get any valuable information. 

If I am a customer, I will take many variables into considerations. If I choose to use Panorama, there should be a difference between when I use it and when I'm not. If I'm a customer who paid for Panorama even when I have many firewalls, I won't get good visibility of the information I need to easily monitor our security environment.

My customers have been attacked by ransomware. It's difficult to understand how the ransomware got through Palo Alto Panorama and Palo Alto dashboard monitoring from reporting. It makes it difficult to conclude what happened on the traffic which passed through Palo Alto. As such, I have to generate an all block report CSV file and analyze it through Excel.

I've been using Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls for about two years.

On performance and stability, I've never heard any complaints. The product is running well and easily maintained by an admin.

I think scalability's the same as any other firewall. If we look to scale five years later, it will be scalable to perform the change. This model on Palo Alto makes it easy to add a new network, so Palo Alto offers more scalability.

Technical support is still not good for me.

The initial setup is so simple. We just needed to make a password and make it a point to point connection. I think it's that simple; make a point to point connection, access the web UI, perform initial configuration so the firewall can be managed through the network, and then we can manage everything through the web UI.

The device is very expensive compared to Cisco and Fortinet. But many of my customers use Palo Alto as Palo Alto is the standard of their organization.

I'd tell potential users of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls that their decision depends on their budget. If you have an adequate budget, then I recommend Palo Alto. If you have a limited budget, you need to consider your needs and look at Cisco ASA's price and Fortinet's price.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight.

Finding a solution for easy management, where the company is protected in a matter where an unwanted software is blocked.

Functional and very futureproof but a bit hard to manage, and the worst thing is that it takes almost 20 mins to boot up, and to commit a config takes half that time.

• GlobalProtect
• URL filtering
• Threat prevention. 

These features are great, but they have drawbacks and could be a bit better, flexible, and easy to manage since it takes the admin time to get them right. 

• Boot time
• Easy UI for the non-network specialists
• Commit time
• Virtualization
• Credit to Palo Alto knowledgebase. 

I deploy this solution for our clients. Firewalls can be used when you want to achieve SD-WAN connectivity. In a client's VPN or site-to-site VPN, it can be used to secure networks locally. If you have an extender or server room, you can secure your IT infrastructure for your servers. The solution can be installed on edge to protect your internal network. If you have services running on AWS or Google Cloud, or Alibaba Cloud, it can be deployed there. Some clients have a hybrid kind of infrastructure. I'm a service delivery engineer and network security lead and we are customers of Palo Alto. 

It's a flexible solution and integrates well with apps and other security tools like SIEM, web applications. They can share their data orchestration. It's robust and fast in terms of architecture and data processing, there aren't any bottlenecks.  

The interface could be improved visually and simplified. It sometimes feels like some of the features are hidden and not easy to find. 

This is a very stable solution. 

In terms of technical support, I've noticed that as long as you have an enterprise license the support is good. 

For a beginner, the initial setup might be somewhat complex because the interface is a bit different, so there's a learning curve. It's not that steep, and once you get it, it's okay. In terms of other solutions, the Palo Alto deployment takes longer than Fortinet, for example, because of the intricacy of the user interface. In a medium size organization, deployment can take three to four days. 

I would recommend this solution. The uptake is mostly with medium and large enterprise, it's strong there. For small to medium size businesses, the preference is usually Fortinet or Sophos. It's really about what suits the client. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

I primarily use this solution for the core banking network. It's for core security. So it's to protect against intrusion, to protect against any kind of cyber attack that can happen to it. It protects our core infrastructure.

Mostly it's improved the security side. There was no security before, and we were looking for a solution that could give us the exact capacity to do all the configurations that we need, while also providing a high level of security. 

The app ID is very good.

The support needs improvement. Also, better reporting of errors would be good.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability is not so good. Because if you want to upgrade, you have to change the service completely. We have about 2000 users.

It's a long wait time, although sometimes it's been quicker to get them. Occasionally, the type of answers provided are not so great.

We used to use Check Point, but we switched. It's because we found Palo Alto is better. Check Point is much slower, more expensive.

The initial setup was straightforward for us. We are technology oriented, so for us, it was straightforward. No complexities. For deployment, we needed about 5 people. Maintenance is only three people. Three engineers are looking after the books.

We did the implementation ourselves.

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.

We previously had Check Point and eventually compared it with the Palo Alto screening, which proved that Palo Alto was the best. It was not a difficult choice.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. Generating reports is not so easy. I think with support, for everyone, and for all the bank company workers, they can do that a bit better. Then maybe I would rate them higher.

I use the solution for firewalls.

I find the configuration the most valuable.

The support in our country can be slow sometimes. It's a slow website. It could also use better customer support.

The solution's stability is normal.

My impression of the scalability is that it is easy.

I contacted technical support a lot of times. Most of the time, they were pretty good, but sometimes technical support couldn't resolve the issue, and they don't know what to do.

The setup of the firewalls has medium difficulty. On one configuration it was easy, and on another one it was hard. Sometimes it's normal to configure sometimes it's more complex. You only need one person, maybe two, for deployment at a company.

I did the implementation myself.

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. 

I didn't look at any other vendors.

The functionality is good and so are the features. In terms of implementing the solution, I wish it was better. I would rate the solution 8 out of 10, mostly due to the technical issues I've experienced.

Firewall.

We standardized on the product and got rid of several other types of firewalls from different vendors.

The firewall has a lot of sub-capabilities underneath it.

I would like integration with Evident.io and RedLock.

The data loss prevention (DLP) capabilities need to be beefed up.

The stability is good.

It is very scalable.

We have had that many problems, so we haven't had to engage with their tech support.

I was not pleased with my previous solutions.

We switched to Palo Alto for better manageability and overall features.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

We deployed in-house.

Annually, the licensing costs are too much.

I would certainly encourage someone to look into this solution.

The customers primarily use this solution for a firewall.

Some of the valuable features in this solution are traffic monitoring, GUI functionality, and it very easy to troubleshoot if there is any problem that happens.

The solution could be simplified.

I have been working with this solution for approximately three years.

I have not found any bugs, this solution is stable.

The technical support I have been using has been through email communication. When I open a support case, shortly there is a response with a solution. They are responsive and have always found solutions for the issues I have been having.

The installation is straightforward. Before I do a deployment for my customers I am able to do a simulation on my laptop.

I rate Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls an eight out of ten.

My primary use cases for this solution have been the firewall, file analysis, and remote-access VPN. 

The graphical interface is easy to troubleshoot because it has a drill-down sequence. It is easy to monitor traffic. 

In Mexico, Palo Alto's discounts are significantly lower than Cisco's. They are also more expensive – about 15% or 20% – than Cisco, but their platforms are very similar.

Their tech support is not as available in Mexico as I would like it to be.