The solution is priced a bit higher than competitors and could be a bit more flexible for customers. I rate pricing a six out of ten. 

It's an expensive solution.

We pay a yearly fee. It is just one fee and everything is covered under it, including support.

The issue with Palo Alto is that the price is almost double other products such as Checkpoint, or Fortinet. There's no reason you price yourself to be double other brands.

I just did a call for renewing my license. I requested two redundancy units. The price, which was all-inclusive with WiFi, a VPN solution, a global VPN, et cetera - all of them bundled together, for two units, over three years, was $81,000.

You can buy the hardware only and each box is not even $10,000. It's only $8,000 for the unit itself. However, then you are charged a three-year license at $81,000.

When it comes to pricing, compared to the OTC and MRC values, it's really high. They are the market leaders and due to their monopoly, whatever they will demand, we have to pay.

I would rate it five out of five in terms of value for money, however.

The pricing structure could use some improvement.

There is a license required to use this solution and it is paid annually.

We're a reseller, and we're an MSSP. So, we get some extreme discounts. 

Licenses are available on a one to three-year basis. If you go for a one-year license, you won't get much of a discount. We have a three-year license for all of our firewalls. Currently, we have 25 firewall licenses.

Currently, we have around 20 TB of data. We are in the process of upgrading our licenses because we are adding more and more files.

The price of the licenses could be lower. Still, because we have Panorama with 25 firewalls, Palo Alto gives us a good discount. 

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama should be reduced. We pay for the solution annually.

We have acquired Palo Alto Networks Panorama for a three-year period, and we are selecting firewall options based on our specific needs, which may result in purchasing a DNS Security solution separately.

The pricing of the product is high. They aren't very cost-effective. That said, they do provide high value to organizations. 

If I were to rate the pricing of Palo on a scale of one to five, with one being really high and five being a good, reasonable price, I would rate Palo as a three.

There is a license needed to use Palo Alto Networks Panorama. The cost is not that important, what is important is meeting all the requirements and security features.

It's a costly product. All Palo Alto products are pretty expensive. Nowadays, people are looking for security and something that offers easy management. Therefore, Palo Alto can easily charge what they want. 

In terms of pricing, Palo Alto Networks Panorama is moderate. It is very affordable when compared to more expensive firewalls. The license is yearly, and the price typically includes the initial license and support, with subsequent years requiring only twenty percent of the initial license cost for support. It is negotiable, and the overall cost depends on your network setup and the type of firewalls you are using.

Cost-wise, it's very expensive. If you want to go with another vendor, Cisco and Fortinet are good for medium-size networks.

I would rate the cost 4 out of 5.

Initially, Palo Alto looks expensive, but if you dig deeper then you will find that it is very comparable, or even cheaper than other solutions. For example, if you are looking for a one-gig next-generation firewall then you will start looking at the Palo Alto 850. If you compare the price of this to Fortinet, Worksense, Forcepoint, or Sophos, then you will see that they offer three or four gig performance at half the price. However, it is not true.

The reason for this is that not all of the security features are enabled. When you enable them, the performance degrades by more than ninety percent, and I have seen this happen in many different scenarios. This means that for the Palo Alto 1GB, it actually means 1GB with all of the functionality enabled. For the other vendors, you will never see their datasheet with all of the functionality enabled for a real environment with real traffic. It is based on lab traffic. Because the reality is that the performance of Palo Alto is better, it means that the price is better. When you compare models using real performance, and you do the calculation, you will see that Palo Alto is very comparable.

The solution requires a license and the price is higher than competitors. It would be better for them to decrease the price or maximize the discount.

Licensing costs are cheaper than Palo Alto but more than other solutions. It's quite expensive. 

In my experience in general, Palo Alto is very expensive.

We tested Palo Alto solution for Kubernetes, and the Aqua Sec and Aqua Sec was much cheaper than Palo Alto. If Palo Alto were less expensive like them, maybe we would've chosen them over Aqua Sec.

It is not a cheap solution.

The pricing is considered a little bit expensive, but depending on the client, it's worth it. Again, it depends on the client, but they generally consider it a good solution.

The payment structure depends on the contract that the client has with Palo Alto. I think usually the cloud solution is charged monthly.

Palo Alto Networks Panorama is a more expensive solution than competitors. They should lower the price to stay competitive.

The pricing is too high for us. We'd like it to be more affordable.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is high. There is a pay-per-use model.

I rate the price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama a five out of ten.

Palo Alto products are generally priced higher compared to their competitors. Its higher price is justified by the reliability, scalability, and extensive feature set that is offered. 

Pricing for Palo Alto Networks Panorama is always high. If you're going to sell the product, you always have to talk about the technology because it should be about the solution rather than the price, or else you'll lose potential customers.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

We have another team that handles licensing. In operations, we do not have any visibility with regard to cost.

The solution is priced well and there is a license for this solution that we pay annually for. 

In terms of licensing for Panorama and Palo Alto products, we have only the DMC cost and we are billed every year.

It's not overly expensive. It is comparatively okay if you look at other devices. Compared to the top three devices, pricing is okay due to the fact that you have multiple vendors who are selling firewalls and competing with each other for the same clients. 

The pricing could be lower.

I can't directly speak to the price of the solution. It's not an aspect of the solution I handle.

Although I don't have direct knowledge of the setup cost I believe it is mid-range. There is also an additional cost for the VPN service.

Palo Alto is expensive and there are many cheaper firewalls, but they do not work as well.

The pricing is pretty average. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate it a five.

Its licensing is yearly and multi-yearly. It is not expensive.

It is pretty reasonable as compared to other companies.

The product's pricing is high but flexible. It now follows the pay-per-use pricing model. I would rate the tool's pricing a five out of ten. 

Sometimes the company prefers to give a license to test the product in our environment before we go to the customer. But the customer should buy his own license, and that's the system here. The system is different between one country and another. Some countries say that the IT solutions provider should provide the license.

I lived in Turkey before, and over there, the customer buys the license and provides this license to the IT solutions provider. However, here in Qatar, the customer asks the IT solutions provider to do everything.

If you compare the price of this solution to other management solutions, it is relatively low. You only pay for the license and there are no additional costs.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama is expensive.

The price of Palo Alto Networks Panorama could be lower.

We pay approximately $3,000 a year in order to use the product.

Licensing fees are paid yearly.

We have a yearly license. The cost is not that high and not that cheap either.

The licensing is not cheap. There are always hidden costs. You have support costs, or maybe you need to buy more optics on how the solution fits into the rest of your environment. It is possible some of the rest of your environment will need to change too.

The solution is expensive and could be cheaper.

The solution isn't too expensive. It's reasonable, especially if you compare it to other options on the market.

The pricing model is reasonable for this class of solutions.  

The price of Panorama is expensive.