I am the team manager responsible for various security products. My customers use Palo Alto Networks products, and I am working with Palo Alto partners. We support a variety of solutions including Strata firewalls, Prisma SD-WAN, and Wildfire for advanced threat protection.

Wildfire, a sandboxing product, allows for analyzing malware in virtual machines. Its strength lies in threat intelligence, which is significant for proactive defense. Palo Alto's robust threat intelligence supports new updates, and I can open cases directly with their Threat Intelligence team. Customers appreciate the throughput and reliability of VM-Series Firewalls, as they can be managed efficiently through Panorama.

I find it difficult to reach technical support at Palo Alto Networks. Most customers go for partner-enabled support, which involves multiple layers, leading to delays. Additionally, the technical maturity level of support is not always high, resulting in dissatisfaction. The pricing of Palo Alto is relatively high, particularly for smaller companies.

I have been familiar with Wildfire for nearly five years. I have been working with the VM-Series for nearly two years.

Palo Alto products are stable compared to others. Stability issues may arise when exceeding throughput limits, but hardware is generally very stable.

Scalability is a strength of Palo Alto VM-Series. They are easy to upgrade, and with credit licensing, they scale effectively according to demand.

I can give Palo Alto Networks technical support a six out of ten. It is very hard to reach, and the process can be lengthy and frustrating because support involves several layers.

Initial setup is easy, especially in public cloud environments where VM-Series can be obtained from the marketplace.

Our ROI is measured in terms of catch rate, however, customers often focus on the total price of the product rather than detailed ROI calculations.

Palo Alto is expensive in terms of pricing, particularly when comparing features to cost. Their Premier Support is also very expensive and not widely chosen by customers.

I would recommend Check Point and Fortinet as alternatives for companies where the budget is a concern.

I would recommend Palo Alto VM-Series to others and rate it an eight out of ten. However, for companies below midsize, it may not be a fit due to cost. For those companies, I suggest considering products like Check Point or Fortinet.

The primary use case involves using next-generation firewalls, hardware, VM-Series, Prisma Access for SASE solutions, Prisma Cloud for cloud security posture management, and Cloud Workload Protection. It's used primarily for securing customers' virtualized data center environments as well as public cloud environments.

The additional visibility, which was lacking with cloud-native tools, has improved the organization's cloud security posture. Advanced enforcement and granular security controls help manage potential threats.

The most effective feature for threat prevention is the threat prevention model in the VM-Series. This is bundled with advanced URL filtering, decryption, and wildfire sandboxing.

If additional web application firewall capabilities could be integrated into the existing firewall, it would negate the need for additional products.

I've been working with Palo Alto VM-Series for at least five to six years now.

We haven't had challenges with failovers yet.

We've controlled the scalability via VMSS in Azure, using auto-scale groups in AWS. It's quite seamless, though there's room for improvement in cost management, especially during traffic spikes.

The technical support is great. We've had no challenges and there are established channels for customer success and professional services.

In the past, I used to work with Check Point, but haven't worked with them lately. Given the support from Palo Alto, there hasn't been a necessity to explore others.

The integration process involved using a Panorama setup for centralized firewall administration, transitioning from cloud-native firewalls to VM-Series.

We are primarily a consulting firm and reseller, so we've had significant involvement in the process.

The solution tends to add to costs especially when scaling, although measures like using large compute instances minimize the need for scaling.

Potential competitors mentioned are Check Point and Cisco but haven't been evaluated recently.

For straightforward firewall inspection and basic IPS, IDS requirements, native firewalls might suffice. For more advanced needs, using VM-Series or Palo Alto Firewalls is recommended.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

All the PwC offices in Pakistan use Palo Alto in their environment. It is a global solution.

Palo Alto is a good product. The features are up to the mark. No other product can compete with Palo Alto’s features. The filtering feature is good. We can block the traffic and examine the report easily. The blocking functionality works very well compared to other firewalls. I rate the ability of the tool to keep up with the trends in firewalls an eight out of ten.

The product must create some awareness in Pakistan. People are less aware of Palo Alto. Everyone knows about Fortinet and Cisco. Very few vendors are promoting the tool.

I have been using the solution for four to five years.

The stability is fine. I rate the stability a seven out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability an eight out of ten. We have 2500 users. We use the tool daily. All our traffic passes through it.

I rate the ease of setup a seven out of ten. The setup is moderately easy. The product is deployed on the cloud. The deployment takes two to three days since it has global rules.

The tool was deployed in-house.

We have seen an ROI of 60% to 70%.

Companies in Pakistan have limited budgets. Palo Alto is more expensive than other products. So, people are reluctant to put Palo Alto in their environment. It's too costly compared to other tools. I rate the pricing a nine out of ten.

We had deployed the solution in 2018. We used a different product before, but my organization switched to Palo Alto. It was the management’s decision. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for inter-VPC traffic segmentation and inspection. I also use it for external interfaces.

The product gives us the ability to do malware detection and file inspection.

The tool provides ease of use for GUI management and deployment. The product provides more visibility into our traffic. It also helps with troubleshooting a bit of high-level next-generation platforms. The auto-update feature of App-ID is valuable. Traffic monitoring, threat monitoring, and dashboards are the most impactful for our network security.

Having visibility and alerts and being able to react to them is valuable. The integration of VM-Series with cloud services has helped us a lot to streamline our security operations. The solution has ease of use. The web interface and the traffic monitoring are more centralized.

The cost must be improved. The tool is very costly.

I have been using the solution for more than five years.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine or ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight or nine out of ten.

The technical support is really good. I rate the technical support a nine or ten out of ten.

We deploy AWS VPC as a virtual appliance, as a security VPC. The initial deployment was moderately easy. It is not complex, though.

I have used Juniper. Palo Alto’s next-generation features are better than Juniper’s.

The cloud service providers are also coming up with similar features. It can get really competitive for Palo Alto. People who want to use the solution must engage the system engineer for the deployment, vetting process, and initial implementation. Overall, I rate the product a nine to ten out of ten.

The primary use case for the Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is real-time inspection for vendor security.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for three years.

I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The product has good scalability. We have small to enterprise businesses as our clients for it.

As per premium support licenses, we received 24/7 support services. Apart from that, they join the calls quickly to resolve the issues for distributors' performance.

The initial setup is easy. We managed and configured it with the help of existing management tools and courses. We deployed it on the cloud and on-premises.

The deployment time depends on specific business requirements and bandwidth. It takes around one to two weeks to migrate and configure for large organizations. For small organizations, it takes one or two days to complete.

The product is costly but provides all essential security features. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

VM-Series enhances the security of our virtualized infrastructure. It ensures that every interaction, pre and post-loan processing, undergoes a thorough inspection, leveraging VPN features and comprehensive security protocols. It reviews the data for encryption and decryption before sending it to the server.

By applying Palo Alto's robust security measures, we enhanced the overall security posture of the cloud development process. Generally, it is challenging to scale hardware while increasing the bandwidth. When it comes to VM-Series, it is more scalable than other firewalls.

Certainly, the prevention capabilities can have an impact on bandwidth. Without the imposition of security profiles, the bandwidth can operate at its full capacity, reaching up to 100 Gbps. However, upon introducing security profiles, there may be a slight decrease in bandwidth due to the utilization of a software control plan and software data plan. The data plan involves a parallel processing mechanism, incorporating multi-scan and multi-action functions. While this may introduce a minimal latency, it efficiently prevents threats with lesser bandwidth. The operation efficiency is enhanced after the deployed VM-Series. We can easily fetch all licensing details, including serial numbers.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

We are using the solution for IDS, IPS, and security.

We need a perimeter firewall to expose anything on the internet. Our inbound and outbound traffic is controlled via Palo Alto. It has multiple features. We have Palo Alto in every location and have a central console where we control all the firewalls.

IDS, IPS, web filtering, and URL filtering are valuable features. Palo Alto is a good product. We have become a major reseller of the product. The tool is beneficial to us. The solution strengthens our IT posture.

The solution must improve Zero Trust integration and use cases. The Zero Trust solution has limitations.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The stability is good. The vendor communicates about the releases in advance. We keep updating the operating systems based on compliance and security notifications.

Scalability might be an issue for large organizations. The throughput is a challenge. Multiple segregations need to be done. More than 40 customers are using the solution. We don't face challenges in deployment and maintenance.

The support is responsive.

The setup is not complex, but it is not simple. We get everything from Microsoft Marketplace. We buy the license outside Microsoft Marketplace because it is more cost-effective. All our VMs are deployed on the cloud.

The license fee is slightly high. We must choose the right licensing.

Palo Alto’s compatibility and integrations are better than Juniper's. Zscalrer’s Zero Trust solution is better than Palo Alto’s. We recommend Palo Alto over Fortinet, Juniper, or Check Point. Palo Alto is less complicated.

Palo Alto is a straightforward solution. The solution does not have any negative impacts on our organization. Overall, I rate the product a nine or nine and a half out of ten.

I have completed ten projects. The solution is used for network security, application control, and enforcement of policies on end-user devices.

The solution enables organizations to enforce policies. We can control every endpoint that is connected to the network.

The vendor must improve the way it advertises and markets the product.

I have been using the solution for four years.

I did not find any bugs in the tool. However, we'll face some issues if we do not configure it properly.

Almost 25 customers in Riyadh migrated from Juniper to Palo Alto this year. Before buying the product, we must know the number of users who will be using it. We must buy the model that best suits our needs.

Some people do not know how to open a case with the support team. When a customer contacts the support team, the team must help the customer to open a case. After a case is opened, the support team must respond within 15 to 20 minutes. However, the team takes three to four hours to respond. There is no proper support channel to follow up on cases.

Deploying a firewall is not easy until we have a basic knowledge of routing and security. If we have the knowledge, we can find the proper document on the website and do it easily. We should know the basic configuration. The deployment process is user-friendly. We can configure it easily.

The product is cheaper than the on-premise version.

When compared with FortiGate, Palo Alto has more security products. However, Palo Alto did not publish the security profile for the end-users or partners. They must explain to their end users why they are better than FortiGate.

People considering implementing the product must consider investing in the on-premise solution instead. If someone has a good experience with VMs, I suggest they choose VM, as it is cheaper than on-premises. Overall, I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

Our corporate clients use the product to secure cloud environments.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series's most valuable feature is the visibility of the environment.

The product's AIOps process needs improvement.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for two years.

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten.

We have 5000 Palo Alto Networks VM-Series users as our clients. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

I rate the initial setup process a nine. It takes a few hours to complete.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series pricing an eight out of ten.

I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a nine out of ten.

The main concern is VPN. If you're using Azure Firewall, you still need a VPN gateway to terminate your VPN connection. Azure Firewall doesn't remove the need for another VPN gateway, especially for point-to-site VPN. So you have to use another VPN appliance. With Palo Alto and FortiGate, for example, you can have an all-in-one solution. The VPN gateway and all the other features are available.

Palo Alto Networks VM-Series has everything centralized. You have the VPN solution, firewall, routing, UDR, flexibility, updates, and full visibility of your traffic. You can also perform log debugging. It provides all the things that Azure's firewall doesn't offer. Plus, you have full ownership of your device.

Firstly, Palo Alto should update their documentation to make it more readable and provide easier-to-follow instructions through videos. This would help people learn and deploy the product more easily. Even if the product itself is excellent, lacking proper documentation and troubleshooting guidance renders it less useful. It won't be helpful even if it's rock solid but lacks sufficient information and tutorials.

I've been using Palo Alto as a VM for about three months. I use the latest version.

It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. We have more than 20 entities using this solution.

Customer service and support are great. The response time is good. My experience with them was very good.

I used Azure Firewall for a while, but then I removed it and installed Palo Alto.

The setup requires professional people to work on it. It's not straightforward. Knowledge is needed to adapt it to your platform.

So, it's not an entry-level solution; it requires professional and expert-level skills.

I deployed the solution myself. The deployment process took about three to four days. It depends on your production environment because I had to migrate production.

Only one person is required for deployment and maintenance.

I can't make a suggestion because it depends on the specific needs they have. They can consider using the entry-level version or opt for the expert lab, depending on their workload.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.