We usually recommend Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for BFSI companies.

I find Palo Alto Networks VM-Series easy to deploy, and none of my customers have had significant complaints. My customers have high certifications provided by Palo Alto Networks. The friendly dashboard and the ability to easily command and use the CLI make Palo Alto Networks VM-Series a better product. It offers robust solutions, making it valuable to my customers.

It may be beneficial if the firewall can monitor all internal elements like VMs pulling from HP servers. Consolidating these insights into a single dashboard would be advantageous.

I have been familiar with Palo Alto Networks for four or five years.

The performance of VM instances has some limitations in terms of threshold and throughput compared to appliances.

I would rate scalability as eight out of ten.

Palo Alto Networks offers better technical support, maintaining SLA efficiently, and resolving issues promptly.

In some cases, I have migrated from Cisco to Palo Alto Networks VM-Series smoothly.

Pricing for Palo Alto Networks is higher than other OEMs, but considering the robustness and features, it gains customer trust. Technical configuration is a focus area due to its high commercial profile.

I consider Check Point alongside Palo Alto Networks, as well as Cisco for wireless solutions.

When evaluating, consider the customer’s environment and pain points since both Check Point and Palo Alto Networks have their advantages. Overall, I rate Palo Alto Networks VM-Series eight out of ten.

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 main gateway for my organization is Palo Alto because my SAP data is hosted there. My staff operates behind Palo Alto, and numerous software applications and websites are hosted on it. I wanted a strong product for security, particularly for ransomware, malware, and a strong VPN for accessing SAP through VPN and CloudProtect.

Palo Alto offers excellent security, with features such as email scanning, malware protection, and efficient VPN and antivirus capabilities. There is no latency, making it faster compared to my previous solutions. The services are hosted and run quickly, which enhances our operations. The security against DDoS attacks has also been improved significantly.

There is a need for two-factor authentication, particularly for VPN and CloudProtect. It would enhance security further. The individual certificate feature where a unique certificate is attached to each user would also be valuable. If Palo Alto adopts this, they would excel.

I have been using Palo Alto for the last three months.

Palo Alto is very stable. I would rate it ten out of ten.

It is very scalable. If I were to rate it on a scale, it would receive nine out of ten, and with two-factor authentication, it would be ten.

The technical support is very good. I rate it nine out of ten.

I was previously using Sophos. The switch to Palo Alto was driven by the need for a product that could manage all my in-house data and offer superior security. Sophos was not offering the class A level of service that Palo Alto provides.

The initial setup of Palo Alto was straightforward as the vendor completed it efficiently in one day.

The product was installed by our vendor.

As of now, I am content with the pricing. Although the price might seem high, it reflects the quality of the product similar to the difference between Android and Apple products.

The pricing is reasonable and reflects the quality of the product. There are no issues with the cost, as it is commensurate with the quality received.

My overall rating for Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is nine points out of ten.

The solution effectively handles security issues and ensures data safety.

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.

I use it for two main reasons. In case there is a customer query, Palo Alto firewall is one of the vendors that we support for syslogs, rule management, change management, and traffic monitoring.

Our product is used to query the firewall and provide a dashboard that raises alarms if any suspicious activity is detected. It involves the management of the firewall. We have a partnership with Palo Alto, and I have worked with VM-Series.

When a customer encounters an issue with our product in accordance with Palo Alto, I analyze the problem and provide solutions. Additionally, I have constructed a lab with network devices for partner training. This lab uses Palo Alto firewalls for communication.

By using this firewall, we were able to address a lot of customer queries and answer to their VM-Series. This helped us retain our customers and gain confidence from them.

Palo Alto is easy to use. The UI is very easy to understand and does not require any certification or highly skilled technician to handle the firewall. It is very user-friendly and straightforward out of the box.

An area for improvement would be AI-related features, particularly in rule management or threat intelligence. Focusing on AI-based threat detection would be beneficial.

Additionally, enhancing the ease of accessing technical support would be useful.

I have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series for about three to four years.

Stability is good. Once it is configured, it is stable, and I would rate it nine out of ten. I have not experienced any outages with Palo Alto, unlike other vendors like Sophos.

Scalability is good, and I would rate it eight out of ten. We use it for testing with a low load, and it works well. In production setups, I have observed it being used effectively with a large number of transactions per second.

Reaching technical support is challenging, and I may not be eligible for direct support since I'm not a customer. It involves multiple channels. I would rate their technical support seven out of ten.

I previously used Cisco ASA, an older version, due to its market leadership at the time. We moved to Palo Alto due to multiple customer requests for other solutions like Sophos, FortiGate, SonicWall, and WatchGuard.

The initial setup was very easy and can be rated nine out of ten. It is straightforward to configure, and the UI is simple.

I did everything myself. One person is sufficient for the deployment and maintenance of five to seven firewalls.

The return on investment is seen in customer retention and addressing their queries rather than in revenue.

I'm not the right person to give a rating for pricing, as I use a not-for-sale license provided by Palo Alto for testing.

We evaluated Cisco ASA, but due to diverse customer demands and requests for vendors like Sophos, FortiGate, SonicWall, and WatchGuard, we extended our support to Palo Alto as well.

For software application firewalls, this is the best solution. If you are using it in a cloud or as an application firewall, then Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is the best one for you.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We use Palo Alto Networks VM-Series to offer services to our customers as a managed security service provider. We provide solutions and services to our customers across the globe. For example, if I want to host a firewall in the cloud or somewhere where the physical appliance is not a possibility, we provide that image of the firewall on virtual machines.

It helps in offering advanced protection against malware and anti-spyware, which is based on customer feedback stating the product has very good threat prevention capabilities.

Very good reliability and feature set, such as advanced protection against malware, anti-spyware, and Wildfire. It also has good VPN capabilities and integration capabilities.

The scalability could be improved further. The virtual instances of the firewall are not as scalable as their hardware firewalls.

We have been using Palo Alto Networks VM-Series firewalls for over five years.

I find the solution to be a good, stable product.

The virtual instances are not as scalable as the hardware firewalls.

A separate team handles implementation. I am mostly involved in the designing aspect of the product.

It is hard to get into the ROI aspect. Generally, ROI can be determined by comparing a physical appliance-based firewall versus a virtual instance of a firewall.

Pricing can be an issue when competing with products like Fortinet, which often offer similar functionality at a lower cost.

There are many competitors like Fortinet offering similar functionality.

I'd rate the solution nine 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.