We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Fortinet FortiGate's most valuable features are ease of use, flexibility, and most of the configuration we can be done using the GUI. When we compare Fortinet FortiGate with other solutions the firewall policy are very easy to understand."
"The network security and cloud security are most valuable."
"The next-gen features, the unified threat management capabilities are something that just about everybody is interested in at this point."
"Security, SD-WAN, and Streetscape are valuable features."
"The virtual firewall feature is the most valuable. We have around 1,500 firewalls. We did not buy individual hardware, and the virtual firewalls made sense because we don't have to keep on buying the hardware. FortiGate is easier to use as compared to Checkpoint devices. It is user friendly and has a good UI. You don't need much expertise to work on this firewall. You don't need to worry much about DCLA, commands, and things like that."
"Easy to use support and licensing portal as well as activation process."
"The features that we have found most valuable are the SSL VPN and the User Portal."
"Customers are more inclined towards FortiGate because of application control, web filtering, and anti-spam features. The support from the FortiGate team is good, and price-wise, it is affordable."
"The key aspect of this solution that provides the most value is its next-gen capabilities, which represented a significant change for us."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"I like that it has high security."
"The DNS sync code in your filtering is the most valuable feature of the Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls."
"Palo Alto offers better Layer 7 protection than competing solutions by Cisco and Fortinet. I also like the VPN client more. The interface is simple, so administrators can deploy and configure it much faster than other firewalls"
"The basic configuration will only take 15 minutes to set up"
"The interface is very nice. We generally like the UI the product offers."
"Mechanically, all firewalls work in a similar fashion, but what makes Palo Alto different is that it also has some of the threat hunt capabilities. It is a little bit better than other vendors."
"The most valuable feature is that you can launch it in a very short time. You don't have to wait for the hardware to arrive and get it staged and installed. From that perspective, it is easy to launch. It is also scalable."
"It gives us the ease that we are secure. We have set up the proper things that help make our data safe."
"Using Palo Alto Networks Panorama, we were able to deploy a single point of management and visualization of the firewall infrastructure in cloud, on-premise and integrated with Azure to automate scale up. Its security features, i.e. anti-malware, threat prevention, URL Filtering, VPN, and antivirus are the most valuable. The ID-User integrated with AD and 2FA features are also very useful to provide secure access to servers and some users in the company. "
"In AWS, Palo Alto provides us a better view than flow logs for network traffic."
"It has excellent scalability."
"The technical support for the solution is very good."
"In the newer version, there are 3850s, all of them are scalable. They fit better into the medium or small businesses."
"It is an easy-to-scale product."
"The improvement is related to logs. Instead of the CLI, we should be able to have more insights into the logs of the firewall in the GUI."
"The debugging and troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"This product needs to have an analysis feature, rather than having the analysis done through the integration of a different product."
"MTBF: Hardware failure is more common when compared to SonicWall or Cisco ASA."
"We sometimes have issues with FortiGate's routing table in the latest firmware update. We had to downgrade the device because our customers complained about bugs."
"The central management for the FortiGate Fortinet Firewall needs improvement. They have the manager to do the essential management for both SD-WAN and for the security policy. They should also improve the SD-WAN function."
"Usually, we sell the bundle with the UTM or threat management piece with IPS, IDS. Other providers, such as Palo Alto, are ahead in terms of safe functionality. So, for me, delivering truly safe service is probably something that still needs to be improved."
"I would prefer to have more detailed logs within the FortiGate products themselves rather than relying on a separate tool."
"Enhancements could potentially be made to the firmware to improve its inspectability."
"Most other VPN clients include mobile VPNs but Palo Alto does not."
"The only downside of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, in my opinion, is the relatively higher price compared to Cisco FortiGate. This is especially noticeable when deploying basic configurations and considering the cost of licenses."
"Everything has been great. More machine learning would be something great to see, but I don't know if it's a priority for Palo Alto."
"We use ACC which is a tool for verifying the activity or traffic within your network. Currently, in ACC, the time of the samples that they offer is about five minutes. When you try to go down to a shorter duration, you can't. You only have five minutes. They can provide samples for shorter durations, such as one minute."
"PA-220 Next-Generation Firewall would be perfect if it has spam filtering."
"The price could be more friendly, which would be good for Palo Alto and us. If the price were a little lower, then it would be a viable option for mid-level businesses, who may not be able to deploy at the current price point."
"The built-in machine learning features provide some automation, but I think there should be an option for manual review because nothing replaces the human eye."
"Its web interface is a bit outdated, and it needs to be updated. They can also improve the NAT functionality. We have had issues with the NAT setup."
"The user interface could use some improvement."
"From time to time, they have released some content updates that have some issues, maybe twice a year."
"Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is a complex product to work with."
"Palo Alto Networks VM-Series needs to improve its order process."
"With Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, it is hard for me to manage its network configuration part."
"In the next release, I would like to see better integration of multi-factor authentication vendors."
"The user-friendliness of the UI could be improved."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 164 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 53 reviews. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and WatchGuard Firebox, whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Cisco Secure Firewall, Juniper SRX Series Firewall and Huawei NGFW. See our Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
In the best tradition of these questions, Feature-wise both are quite similar, but each has things it's better at, it kind of depends what you value most.
PA is good at app control, web filtering and such like, they have always been top of the pile there. The GUI is very good, and their product is very user-focused.
Fortinet is good for scalability and predictable high throughput (ASICs in the hardware), and useful things like authentication flexibility, CLI config (if you have any networking/Cisco people, they always seem to prefer CLI over GUI) and have better OT features, maybe relevant to your manufacturing use?
Fortinet seem to have a broader integration offering with their security fabric than PA do, plus they can do Fortinet-based wifi, switching, etc. Depends if you are prepared to go all-in with a single vendor.
Hi,
Both FT and PA have compelling features for large Enterprises. I would like to add a few good points about Fortinetwhich might be helpful ( from my 13 years of engagement with them as Distributor and Partner)
Fortinet:
Have higher throughput; which comes with competitive rates
Wide range of models to select to meet your requirement, without spending heavliy
Outstanding customer support and very active customer care team
Easly available skilled resources from the channel for deployment and post-implementation support
Regards
Abhilash
Hello. The question is what you are going to have as a result of application