Palo Alto Networks PA-Series Reviews

The solution is used for security and IoT security.

The solution's licensing price could be improved. The solution's GUI should be user-friendly and easily configurable.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for the last three years.

I rate Palo Alto Networks PA-Series a seven out of ten for stability.

The solution's scalability is not very good. Around 300 users use the solution in our organization, and we have plans to increase the usage.

The solution's technical support is good.

I have also worked with Fortinet and SonicWall.

The solution's initial setup is a little complex compared to other solutions.

It takes two to three hours to deploy the solution.

We have to pay a yearly licensing fee for the solution.

I would recommend Palo Alto Networks PA-Series to other users.

Overall, I rate Palo Alto Networks PA-Series a seven out of ten.

Almost all firewalls and OEMs provide the same features. Palo Alto blocks the new threats better than other tools. It provides better Wi-Fi analysis.

Palo Alto has too many features. The interface is complex. It could be better.

We are providing the solution to our customers.

We have sold the solution to eight to ten customers.

The support is good.

Positive

If the product doesn’t fit the budget of the customer, we sell solutions like Fortinet. Fortinet’s support is better than Palo Alto's. Fortinet is partner-friendly. Fortinet is cheaper in India. If a customer requires a product listed in Gartner, we suggest Palo Alto and Fortinet. Otherwise, we suggest Sophos.

Fortinet is better at maintaining partner relationships. Palo Alto also understands the partner’s needs and helps them out. Even the distributors’ technical teams help us. Fortinet’s interface is good. It is easier to deploy than Palo Alto.

It is easy to implement the solution.

The product is expensive. The product is suitable for customers who are not cost-sensitive. The new series for the SMB sector has a very good price.

My recommendation depends on the budget of the customer. The 400 series might be different, but we haven’t started pitching it to our customers. The tool is suitable for the customers who know what they are doing. Overall, I rate the tool a nine and a half out of ten.

The product is used for perimeter defense when two networks are connected.

Our customer wanted to connect their network to a central location. So, they use the solution at the central location as an aggregation firewall.

The solution is robust. It is one of the best firewalls in the industry. It has a good track record. It is user-friendly.

The product must provide multiple threat detection features. Additional features must be embedded in the firewall to enhance it.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The tool is much more stable than any other firewall.

The tool is scalable. It is a pay-as-you-go solution.

We have our own engineers who provide our customers with technical support.

Palo Alto installs the tool. We sell only the on-premise version of the tool. We sell the critical infrastructure for it.

Palo Alto’s pricing is way higher than any other solution provider. It is expensive to buy and maintain the product. The renewal prices are higher than the competitors.

Palo Alto is the best firewall because of its features, robustness, and threat detection and prevention. Palo Alto is expensive compared to Fortinet. Considering the cost and performance, I recommend Fortinet to people. Fortinet is cheaper and provides similar features as Palo Alto.

I am selling firewalls. I heard that endpoint security and other additional security solutions can be added to the firewall. The services are expensive. If people have enough budget, they can choose Palo Alto. Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Most of our clients in Pakistan deploy Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for a variety of use cases. They primarily use it to target VLANs within their networks, including different types of networks like DMZ. These clients integrate the PA-Series with their applications, servers, and often utilize SSL VPNs for secure remote access. These scenarios are typical in the IT sector and align with the types of deployments we see commonly in our region.

We mostly utilize the Spireware profile within Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for threat prevention, which includes basic subscriptions like URL filtering. Many customers are highly satisfied with the threat prevention and firewall capabilities provided. While some customers use team applications like IBM SIM software, we primarily focus on mini CRMs for releases. Through integration and utilizing firewall data, we maintain a strong network security posture, addressing threats effectively. We also conduct security life cycle reviews and leverage tech support files from customers to continually improve our security measures.

The reporting feature and application ID functionality within Palo Alto Networks PA-Series are incredibly valuable to us. With the firewall, we can precisely control and block applications like WhatsApp, log activities, and prevent certain types of uploads. Utilizing the application IDs provided by Palo Alto Networks helps us secure our network effectively. Integration with other tools and systems further enhances our overall security posture. Some of our customers have integrated the Palo Alto Networks PA-Series with Forescout, and the integration is working exceptionally well. We've created policies using Post Guard to detect and block malicious traffic or duplications. When such threats are detected, both the firewall and Postgres work together to promptly block them within the network.

I don't have any specific suggestions for improving the Palo Alto Networks PA-Series at the moment. I find it to be a very effective solution, and I don't have any major complaints or areas for improvement in mind. However, pricing flexibility could be an aspect worth considering, as it has been a concern for some of our clients.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for 5 years.

Similarly, I find the product's stability to be top-notch, also rating it a 10.

In terms of scalability, I would rate it a solid 10 out of 10, indicating excellent scalability capabilities.

Regarding technical support, Palo Alto Networks has been very responsive and helpful whenever I've reached out for assistance or submitted a ticket, earning a positive recommendation from me for their support services.

Setting up Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for the first time is straightforward and easy, especially if you're familiar with firewalling and network configurations.

When it comes to handling large volumes of encryption traffic, PA-Series is effective when encryption detection is focused on sensitive data, although it may reduce speed for overall traffic. I rate PA-Series a 10 out of 10 and highly recommend it to other users due to its reliability and performance compared to competitors like Fortinet.

I use the solution in my company to cater to the needs of our clients, so based on the requirements of the clients, we configure the firewall.

Palo Alto's advantage is that it offers very secure products. Unit 42 in Palo Alto and sandboxing are advantages offered by the product, along with the fact that it provides users with updates every minute, so users keep getting updates. App-ID is the name of a feature in the product that is very good. None of the other firewall products offer the aforementioned features. With the product, the area around NAT is very secure, and users get a lot of options for NAT.

The technical support offered by Palo Alto is an area of concern where improvements are required. It is very difficult to get technical support, which is a very pathetic area. If you try to figure out a solution to your issues with the help of a web browser, it is very difficult to find a proper solution. Other firewall products have proper portals where everything gets published with all the details on how to resolve an issue. There is a need to have a dedicated person or specialist to manage Palo Alto, but getting one is a problem. Overall, the area of technical support is not user-friendly.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for eight years.

Some issues are there with the stability part of the solution, but based on the feedback from clients, Palo Alto sends updates like all other solutions. One can say that the tool is mostly stable.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

It is a scalable solution.

Our company has a strength of 250 employees.

My clients deal with two or three enterprise-sized clients who use Cisco. Small and medium-sized businesses use Palo Alto. Some of our big clients who operate at an enterprise level use Palo Alto.

It is very difficult to get to the product support team, and it takes at least half an hour to get connected with the technical team. I rate the technical support a four out of ten.

Neutral

For deployment, Palo Alto provides a tool that doesn't work properly on many of the systems from Windows, and only the product's previous versions work properly, but the latest versions don't work. Palo Alto offers Limited options to users and allows for easy migration when it comes to products like Cisco, Fortinet, or IBM, but for low-end servers, there are no options to migrate from the tool.

If a large part of a client's workforce operates with cloud services in place, then the solution can be deployed on the cloud. Nowadays, most people are moving to the cloud.

The time required to deploy the solution depends on the firewall size and configuration, but I know that it requires at least a month.

Our company has around 14 members from the network security side involved in the deployment process.

Price-wise, Palo Alto offers high-price products. It is mostly the enterprise-sized customers who prefer to use Palo Alto products. Recently, Palo Alto launched Palo Alto Networks PA-400, which is much cheaper than the other products on the market. My company has to make yearly payments or opt for a three-year payment when it comes to the charges associated with the licensing model of the product. The clients of the tool need to procure the license for the premium support. Almost all the vendors of firewall products follow the aforementioned steps nowadays when it comes to the licensing model.

Considering the presence scenario, I can suggest Fortinet since I found its products doing well in business. Support and configuration-wise, Fortinet is better than Palo Alto, but technology-wise, Palo Alto is the number one product in the market. Fortinet is much more user-friendly than Palo Alto.

The tool is not very easy to maintain, but people go for it since it is a secure product. Only those who know about Firewall products can maintain the solution.

Some of our company's clients have migrated from Palo Alto Networks PA-Series to FortiGate or Fortinet since it is very easy to manage with a very user-friendly UI.

Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is a good solution, but someone in the organization should manage it since it is not a very user-friendly tool. If you want to configure something, you need to know how Palo Alto Networks PA-Series works and also know about what architecture is and all. Other firewall products can be easily configured since very user-friendly GUIs are made available to users. Checking logs in Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is very difficult. If someone knows how to check logs, then it's fine because otherwise, it's very difficult.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for security purposes, like restricting traffic for which traffic you want to allow. You can control your network.

Palo Alto Networks firewalls offer single-mode panel processing with live scanning. While other firewalls only scan for malware in the first-stage store.

The SD-WAN feature of Palo Alto Networks is not good compared to FortiGate. It is also more complicated to configure, while FortiGate is much easier.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks PA-Series for three years.

The product is stable.

The solution is scalable. Our organization has more than 300 units in Europe and the USA. In the Asia region, they are using FortiGate.

We recently opened a ticket with the technical team, and they should be able to fix the issue. We have opened multiple tickets, and the technical support has been good.

Neutral

We have used FortiGate before. You can easily configure Palo Alto products compared to other firewalls. Palo Alto firewalls have many features, including live scanning, filtering, and use policies to control traffic. Compared to other firewalls, Palo Alto firewalls offer more security.

The initial setup is simple with no complexity. All firewalls are the same; we have implemented four to five sites. HA configuration is complex but easy because they are configuring FortiGuardian. We need to assign the bot’ IP address in Palo Alto, whereas FortiGate assigns only one IP. There’s no need to assign an IP from the active directory.

Palo Alto is more expensive than FortiGate.

Palo Alto is easily accessible, manageable, and offers more features and security. I recommend this solution.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I use the solution to secure infrastructure boundaries. I use the product as a backend firewall for applications with traffic.

App-ID is a really good feature. The product’s URL filtering features are amazing. The security controls are also very good.

The support provided by the solution is not that good.

I am using the product currently.

The solution is stable. However, I observed some issues I did not expect from a well-known solution like Palo Alto. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The product has different models, and its high-end models can be scaled easily. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The support is good, but not that good.

Positive

The initial setup is a little tricky. It is not simple and straight.

Except for support, everything else in the product is perfect. If someone is looking for a perfect firewall, they should choose Palo Alto. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We have a hybrid environment where we use a mixture of self hosted PA-Series. IRROLs and the vendor hosted by raws via the Prisma Access Solution. 

The direct profiles is a valuable feature. 

The pricing of the solution needs improvement. 

I have experience using Palo Alto Networks PA-Series. 

I have used Cisco and Fortinet. 

The initial setup of Palo Alto is a tricky one. 

It is a very expensive solution. 

I would rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.