Palo Alto Networks Panorama Reviews

The solution is primarily used as a firewall reporting feature.

The dashboards are very good on Palo Alto. They offer a centralized dashboard for managers as well.

The solution needs to improve its pricing model.

Panorama needs to work on its configuration issues.

They should also focus on firewall management. Many clients have multiple firewalls, so Palo Alto should offer better management of them. They could model themselves off of AlgoSec, or maybe FireMon which are other very good firewall management tools.

The solution is stable. Palo Alto, in general, is pretty good. 

The solution is very scalable. We manage about 12 firewalls. The maximum might be 100.

Support from Palo Alto is very good. You can get it from the distributor or from Palo Alto directly.

The setup is generally straightforward. Deployment times vary, according to the client's environment and if they have multiple branches, etc. It can take anywhere from one to three days. After that, you have to fine-tune a few items, and that can take another two or three weeks. So the entire deployment process, depending on the organization, can take anywhere from three days to three weeks. Maintenence only takes one person, once again, depending on the setup of the company itself.

Most of our clients deal with the on-premises deployment solution, as cloud solutions in Egypt can occasionally be insecure.

I would advise anyone looking to implement the solution really focus on sizing before beginning the implementation.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use the solution for long-term traffic blocks when our management needs to receive information on specific events or for theory testing. Panorama sits on the firewall and manages traffic blocking.

The solution is easy to use. 

The central firewall management could be better. 

I've been working with Panorama for two years. 

The solution is stable; we didn't have any downtime.

Our IT department has around four users who manage the solution, and another department has over ten end users.

We contacted technical support in Hong Kong, provided by a local partner of Panorama, and they aren't the best; there is room for improvement.

Neutral

Another division handled the initial setup, but they said the deployment should be easy as it doesn't require complex tasks. It's simple to open the software and configure the tool.

The solution is relatively cheap; I rate it four out of five for affordability. 

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

I rate the product seven out of ten. 

What's most valuable in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is that it allows us to see the status on the network side, particularly on the endpoint, because we also use it for the internal network.

As the cybersecurity threats have become more aggressive these days, Palo Alto Networks Panorama can still be improved, particularly on the security side, for example, more network management, and penetration test. Improving the security feature for internal endpoints is needed in the solution.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is more training and more marketing.

I've been distributing Palo Alto Networks Panorama for ten years.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a very stable solution.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a scalable solution, and we don't have any issues scaling it.

For me, the technical support for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good.

The initial setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is not complex.

My company pays for the licensing cost of Palo Alto Networks Panorama yearly, and it's all-inclusive, so there's no need to pay extra for some features.

My company has a partnership with Palo Alto Networks and it is a reseller of Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

The version of Palo Alto Networks Panorama being used would depend on the hardware side and the client, but I cannot remember the exact version. We are on a new version: version eight if I'm not mistaken.

My company has a team for the maintenance of the solution.

My rating for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is eight out of ten.

Panorama: Provides a central management capability for all of the firewalls. It has the ability to manage the devices in groups based on their use. We use the firewalls in two primary functions and the ability to provide management of the different groups of firewalls is very useful.

Firewalls: The application ID capabilities have been very useful for things like Active Directory, and not having to identify every port that Microsoft has decided to use.

I can’t say that it has significantly improved the functions of the organization over the firewalls that we were previously using. The addition of a good central management capability has helped improve the management of the firewalls, but the functions for the service that is provided to the users has not significantly changed.

Panorama: The ability to add scheduled jobs would be a significant improvement. Panorama has the ability to push out OS updates, but it would be nice to be able to schedule those updates so not to affect the site during normal business hours.

Firewalls:

• (1) App-ID is good, but could be better. We use off ports for some common services and App-ID does identify the application correctly, but the rule allowing the traffic does not allow the traffic without adding the ports to the rule. This negates the need for App-ID in the rule. If App-ID worked as I think it should, we would use it and then block the common port.
• (2) Integration with Microsoft Active Directory incurs significant additional traffic across the WAN circuits. We have a number of GCs across our environment and the configuration of Active Directory in the firewalls requires significant communications to all of the GCs across our environment. We were seeing the firewalls generate around 500kb of WAN traffic communicating with all of the GCs. After reviewing the configuration with Palo Alto support, the config was correct. While we do want to be able to use the User-ID functionality of the firewalls, that kind of overhead is not acceptable.

We have been using Panorama and the PAN FWs for just over one year.

So far we have not seen any issues with stability.

We have not run into any issues with scalability.

Technical support with Palo Alto has been very good and responsive.

We previously were using Cisco ASA devices. The switch was made based on central management and the NGFW functions. The timing was in the middle of Cisco delivering their NGFW functionality. The other issue that led to the move was when Cisco presented their recommended replacement for the existing devices, they recommended their Meraki line with Internet management, which was not in line with our requirements for many of our more sensitive firewalls.

Initial setup is very easy. After working with a few new installations we were able to put together a script to apply the new firewalls to setup the management access, Panorama location, high availability (HA) configuration and the initial IP stack. This makes it easy to start the OS updates and initial rules from Panorama. By having the HA setup scripted, it also makes the OS updates a single download instead of a download for each device. The HA connection allows the firewalls to copy the OS over to the other firewall with the single download. That is important because there are several large downloads necessary to update the OS to the current OS levels.

Pricing is high compared to other vendors in the same space. Licensing is also fairly high for different functions to be added on, like Intrusion detection/prevention, user VPN, URL filtering. Some firewall vendors offer the “additional” licensing/functions as part of their license for the device and then others offer it like Palo Alto.

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

Talk to other customers. Start with the ones recommended by the vendor, but also in forums as well. Everyone understands that recommended customers are handpicked and forums can be contain spurned customers. But if you look for information regarding specific functions that you need, you can find more useful information. Make sure if you hear something glowing from a vendor recommended customer about a function, check on that function online.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is similar to Cisco FMC, for centralized management and monitoring of multiple Palo Alto firewalls. You can push your configuration from Palo Alto Networks Panorama to all your Palo Alto Networks firewalls. You then receive different data reports, threat reports, threat logs, and system logs. You don't need to log into each firewall to get that information or configure it because you can see or do it all in Palo Alto Networks Panorama. If there is any issue or link failure, you'll find that information on Palo Alto Networks Panorama, so the product is best for the centralized management of firewalls.

A valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is reporting because it gives you different reports on data, logs, and threats. It has easy policy management and control, NAT, PBF, decryption, and visibility.

I also like the centralized firewall management feature of the product.

The technical support for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is responsive.

A bottleneck in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is the licensing. The pricing and licensing model for the product is expensive and can be complicated, or it could be because I'm more familiar with Cisco licensing, which I find brilliant and easy, compared to Panorama licensing, which could be hell.

Another area for improvement in Palo Alto Networks Panorama is report generation.

It is expensive and suitable only in an enterprise environment.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for nine years.

It is stable.

It is a scalable solution.

The technical support team for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is very responsive. The support staff will call you even after the case is closed, asking you how the support was and that he hopes the same issue doesn't resurface. Panorama support is excellent.

Positive

I found the initial setup for Palo Alto Networks Panorama easy.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is more expensive than its counterpart Cisco FMC, although I have some clients who don't care about the budget but care more about extra features.

Recently, my company upgraded the version of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for one of the clients, version 10.0.

If you are using Palo Alto Networks Panorama for the first time, I'll advise you not to use it if you only have one to two firewalls or if you only have a small environment. Better use the product if you have four to six firewalls and want centralized management.

I'll also tell you that Palo Alto Networks Panorama requires a higher level of technicality, so you must study a lot before using it. It would be best to familiarize yourself with licensing, threat protection, decryption policies, app override, DoS protection, etc. Still, I can say that Palo Alto Networks Panorama is an excellent product to use.

My rating for the product is eight out of ten.

I'm a customer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama.

The basic use case is when you have a lot of Palo Alto Networks firewalls. Panorama is a security management tool for all of your Palo Alto Network devices. Every time you create some configurations or when you need to manage a lot of branches with Palo Alto Network devices, and when you need to group these branches to use the policies, the configurations on a group of devices, it's useful. It's easier to use Panorama to manage stuff.

It's user-friendly. Users can easily manage the configurations, the policies, and the objects inside Panorama, inside the Palo Alto Network devices. 

It is really useful for big deployments. It's useful for users that have two devices. 

We have the ability to install Panorama in a public cloud deployment, and of course, Palo Alto also has their own cloud in which you can store the logs of all of your devices and basically get the reporting and get management for these logs through Panorama. Palo Alto has cloud firewalls and they are also manageable through Panorama. This is like a cherry on the top of all of your network security from Palo Alto in your organization.

The setup is easy.

It is not a cheap product. Some kinds of Palo Alto devices can cost a few thousands of dollars, and Panorama will be even higher. For the big customers that have a lot of devices, it is crucial to get all the benefits from the Palo Alto Networks portfolio regarding network security.

For a highly secure environment, they sometimes need only hardware appliances, not a virtual machine. 

Palo Alto Networks was the first vendor in my cybersecurity career. I started to work with Palo Alto Networks at my first job in a small integrator company in Ukraine. I've been working with Panorama for maybe 16 or 17 years. There was a small period of three years between this experience, and now I'm again working with Palo Alto Networks.

It's really stable. We have a public cloud and hardware and we have a virtual one, and all of them are really stable. We have not seen critical issues or a lot of comments from the customers that it is not a stable solution.

It's really scalable. It's based on the number of devices. If you need 25 devices, it will be one license. If you need thousands of devices to manage, it will be another kind of license. It's really scalable and can install the machines with the high availability mode, so it's really stable.

Support answers quickly. I have no issues with Palo Alto Network support. Basically, our company is an Accredited Support Center of the Palo Alto Networks for our customers and basically we are also providing support at the lowest levels. 

It's really straightforward to implement. It's not something where you need some special engineer. Palo Alto has a really great document portal, docs portal, where you can find all the needed information to deploy this. That said, it is really straightforward for any administrator who deployed something before. You just click next, next, next, you just then need to change a key, and that's all.

It's not the cheapest solution. It can be quite expensive. There are other less costly options available on the market.

I am working for an official distributor of Palo Alto Networks.

It is on-premises, and it has cloud abilities too. Public cloud deployments are available.

I can recommend the solution to new users and suggest, firstly, that they choose their mode of Panorama. They need to decide if they will deploy in a public cloud or maybe on-premises. If you have a lot of Palo Alto devices, you will need Panorama. If you have this significant amount of Palo Alto Network devices, when you get Panorama, you will get a lot of features that will make your life easier.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

We use Palo Alto firewalls, for our perimeter security. It is our perimeter security product, which we use as our perimeter security firewall. As a firewall should, protect us and our organization at the perimeter.

It's an excellent product. It's doing its job, and we like it. The ease of use is quite nice. Everything about the reporting and everything about Palo Alto Networks Panorama is good.

Everyone, I suppose, would like the price to be improved. Price is always a good thing to change.

There is always room for improvement in anything. But I couldn't really comment on that off the top of my head.

In terms of updates, I believe everything is in order. That is not an issue for me.

I have been working with Palo Alto Networks Panorama for five months.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is 100 percent stable. We have it running in HA status, obviously, for failover, but It's extremely stable. There are no complaints.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is scalable.

We have a large organization. We are a retail company, with approximately 4000 users who are protected by this firewall.

I have never contacted technical support personally. We do outsource our support to another company. When there are issues, they are responsible for resolving them.

We use their product called, Cortex XDR.

We use an onboard, a custom CRM platform that we created in-house. At the moment, we do not use a commercially available one.

I have been with my current company for five months. And we were using checkpoints as our perimeter security when I first joined, and we moved to the Palo Alto Panorama platform. And it's a fantastic product; we love it. As an organization, it has been very well written.

I wasn't involved in the installation because, as I previously stated, I just started working for my current organization. 

I wasn't directly involved in the transition, but it went smoothly.

I couldn't comment on price as I am not really involved in the commercial side of the business.

I am not aware of the licensing fees.

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.

It's doing its job for us. Since we cut it out, from Checkpoint to Palo Alto, everything has improved noticeably. I recommend it.

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

I worked for a system integrator, and some of our clients  asked us to manage their firewalls. They have a large number of sites all around the world. One of them has got 25 sites, and the other one has got 13 sites. So, we deployed Panorama in our DataCenter, and we managed the gateway for our customers with Panorama.

The management and the deployment features are most valuable. We can easily deploy and manage the devices. We can do fast deployments without moving from our office and by just providing a short description to the end-user about how to install the physical device.
With Panorama you are able to manage a large number of firewall and to simplify change and incident management process .
With Panorama, firewall rules may be  managed mixing preconfigured templates (common on all/some firewalls) and more specific rules
From Panorama Dashboard you have an immediate view about the status of all the firewall deployed. 

It is quite hard to understand the platform. It is not easy and user-friendly. You need some experience and the proper technincal training  to use Panorama without risks.
It is very complex, and you must know exactly what to do.
The bigger problem is that Panorama Dashboard Logic is quite different than PanOS firewall Dashboard.
The second problem is that you dont have wizards or template .You need to build your enviroment from zero on your own incurring in possibile configuration or logic errors.

I would like to have a more user-friendly and simple to use product .
For istance FortiManager is comparatively much more easier  to use and understand.
Palo Alto Firewall too are Really easier to manage than Panorama. 

Panorama Logging and reporting features are quite good ( like PaloAlto Firewall) but not the best on the market ( for istance Checkpoint SmartEvent is still far better) 

I have been using this solution for two years.

It is quite stable based on my experience. I did not have any big issues regarding the operating system.

It is quite easy to scale with Panorama. It is more for a medium or big enterprise. To manage an environment from Panorama, you must have people with high skills. Its cost is not suitable for a couple of gateways only.

We have three levels of Palo Alto support. I also have email support in the Italian language. They provide very good support levels.

I did not install Panorama from scratch. Palo Alto Gateway is quite easy to deploy and has a decent setup.

In terms of maintenance, it doesn't require too much effort. We usually check the best practices from their website. We update the Panorama server according to the best practices and the compatibility with the gateway.

Panorama price is quite high (comparing with other Firewall management suites) 

We have used it in the past for logging and reporting, but now we have another third-party product to manage the logs.

I would recommend Panorama for managing a large-sized or medium-sized network. To manage a center with a lot of devices or cloud services, Panorama is useful. 

I would rate Palo Alto Networks Panorama a seven out of 10.