There are multiple platforms available that include XDR and the Proxy. 

The solution is very easy to use in comparison to the Forcepoint Proxy. 

I've looked at almost every other product over the last 15 years. However, Palo Alto offers the best cybersecurity solutions. 

I've seen three other devices like FortiGate and FortiManager as well as FortiAnalyzer. However, I can't make apples-to-apples comparisons between the solutions. I can say that the interface of Panorama is better in general, and Panorama does offer very good visibility.

We generally compare Palo Alto with the offerings from Check Point because they both seem to have the majority of the market share here in my region.
From a stability point of view, I think Panorama is better. Check Point is struggling with their current software releases along those lines, and Panorama is very good at releasing new features along those lines. Palo is a lot faster than a lot of the competitors on the market.

We decided to use Palo Alto Networks Panorama over other solutions because we have the strategy sheet which defines our requirements, and our requirements were mostly met. We have a standardized service we want to deliver when it comes to a firewall we use Palo Alto Networks Panorama, if we use load balancers, we use F5, and for networks, we use Cisco. We have certain things that are already defined as a criterion for us to follow.

We have worked with many, many vendors, and this is the most mature next-generation firewall in the market. The performance of Palo Alto is very predictable, unlike other vendors who are faking their datasheet in terms of high-performance numbers that are unrelated to a real network, or real traffic.

Palo Alto provides numbers that reflect what is happening when all of the security functions are enabled, whereas other vendors do not show their performance will all of the functionality enabled. In reality, they are better than others. At the end of the day you are buying a security device, and you don't want to turn off any of the functionality to enhance your performance. Palo Alto is designed from day zero for performance and security.

We've looked at Cisco and noted that configurations seem to be easier using that product as opposed to Palo Alto. That said, Palo Alto is okay and still manageable. 

I've never compared the solution to other options. The company uses it and therefore I do too. 

I also work with Fortinet, and I think their solution is more intuitive. The menus are less charged, and I found the documentation to be a little bit more clear.

I evaluated another solution, but Panorama is easy to use and deploy, plus the performance is better. I can quickly install policies.

The original decision was made by a different group within the company. The re-evaluation included Cisco ASA, Cisco Meraki, Fortinet and Palo Alto.

I am aware of XSOAR, but we haven't had any dealing with it yet. We are on a journey to potentially onboard that within our environment. But, at this point, we don't have, the budget for it.

I previously evaluated Check Point and Fortinet. Check Point security management server is altogether a different GUI & cannot work without SMS and Fortinet is also different because FortiAnalyzer is only used for log collection.

This solution features I would recommend over Fortinet and Check Point because it has the same look as a firewall and there is no more difference between firewall and Panorama. We can deploy policy & other configurations without panorama as well. 

We looked at FireMon, but FireMon was more expensive, and the main requirement for FireMon is to manage more than one file from different vendors. We didn't need it.

Before choosing this solution, we also looked at Fortinet.

I think we're getting AlgoSac, which is another firewall automation tool. However, I wasn't involved with the decision for that one so I'm not too sure on the specifics, but I know we are going with them.