We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Sangfor NGAF 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."Offers good security and filtering."
"The SD-WAN feature is the most valuable. This feature evolved from link load balancing. It has helped us in terms of our uptime and privatizing applications whenever we experience an outage. The SD-WAN feature has been a plus for us. Two-factor authentication has allowed us to add more users in terms of remote working. We have two-factor authentication for remote workers to authenticate them before they get on the network."
"Security solution with a straightforward and quick setup. It's a stable and scalable product."
"Fortinet FortiGate protects against internet-based threats, both internal and external. It is scalable, stable, easy to use, and easy to install."
"It enables our organization to become more productive. Also, it protects our NEtWare from viruses and malware."
"The ability to set up remote systems is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ease of use and the UI. It has always provided me with what I needed. I have no need for additional costs that other solutions have, such as Sophos."
"The multi-tenancy feature is most valuable. It integrates very well with FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer."
"It's one of the best products I've worked with. It's typically a market leader on Gartner. It's a very respected brand."
"The stability of the product has been good over the years."
"Compared to other firewalls from Check Point, Fortinet, and Cisco, for example, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls use the most advanced techniques. They have sandbox integration and others in the orchestrator. Palo Alto's security features are at a higher level than those of the competitors at the moment."
"When we put it on the border, it was blocking everything that we were getting ahead of time, and we weren't getting any hits. This includes URL filtering, spam prevention, and anti-virus."
"Their Prisma log collection is pretty great. Our product collects the logs, and it definitely makes the configuration of log collection easier."
"All the features are valuable, but my main one is the straightforward and well-designed GUI. I'm over 50 and have been in this business since the internet started. I'm not a GUI guy; I prefer using the command line. The product's GUI is excellent, and so is the threat intelligence. It's also straightforward to configure and flexible. The solution even has good networking, such as VLAN and subinterfaces, which is great because, in my experience, if the firewall is good, then the router usually isn't and vice-versa, but Palo Alto has both."
"The management options are good."
"Good functionality and features."
"The most valuable features are the WAN optimization, the internet access gateway (IAG), and the central console, which allows us to implement on their firewall."
"The product is very fast and reliable."
"You might try Sangfor if you are on a tight budget. The price is affordable, and Sangfor offers a lot of features. We don't have any complaints about Sangfor."
"Technical support is very good."
"Particularly good in the DPI where we can inspect inbound and outbound traffic."
"Sangfor NGAF works accordingly with our customers. The solution has good performance, easy to use, and integrates well with the endpoints."
"The VPN connectivity feature is really nice."
"I think Sangfor NGAF is more valuable than Cisco products because of its simplicity and ease of management. If I compare it with Palo Alto and Cisco, both are quite complex products. And if I compare it with FortiGate firewalls from Fortinet, I have also used all these products. Fortinet and Sangfor NGAF are similar products because the applications behind the application and policy layers are almost identical."
"Stability and technical support are the two major issues I have found with Fortinet."
"The solution is very expensive."
"In the next release, maybe the documentation on how to use this solution could be improved."
"I would like reporting to be improved and should offer a lot more tools to monitor the products."
"The way everything is set up could be easier. Currently, people need a lot of experience and knowledge to administer it and to link it to devices."
"Some of the features in the graphical user interface do not work, which requires that we used the command-line-interface."
"The integration with third-party tools may be something that they should work on."
"Sometimes you do need to know some CLI commands, so it's a bit harder for technicians or new people that don't know it."
"Once in a while, they have new features being released that can be buggy. My criticism is more general to all sorts of network or security devices. In general, everybody is releasing less-tested software. Then, it usually ends up that the first few customers who get a new release need to end up troubleshooting it."
"We are not happy with Palo Alto at all. It would be better if they provided more support for the firewall. We have a few pending issues with the configuration for each application. We cannot deploy them yet due to some support-related problems in the firewall. We have deployed a few policies for DNS spoofing and DNS attacks, but we could only block a few IP addresses through the policy. That's DNS security, and we have configured a few policies for DNS spoofing and more. URL categorization and URL filtering are not yet adequately maintained. For example, if you created a few rules in the rule-based configuration and made some rules downstairs, you will lose some of them if you give access upstairs. It's not giving us a proper solution for which route it is using. We need to apply the application-based policies and URL filtering-based policies. It creates more issues because we are not getting good support from the team."
"I wish that the Palos had better system logging for the hardware itself."
"It is a complete product, but the SSL inspection feature requires some improvements. We need to deploy certificates at each end point to completely work out the UTM solutions. If you enable SSL encryption, it is a tedious process. It takes a lot of time to deploy the certificates to all endpoints. Without SSL inspection, UTM features will not work properly. So, we are forced to enable this SSL inspection feature."
"I think they need to have a proper hardware version for a smaller enterprise. We had to go to a very high-end version which is very expensive. If we chose the lower-end version, it would not meet our goals. A middle-end is missing in its portfolio."
"The level of control and granularity in terms of rule customization could be enhanced. However, compared to our previous solution, Palo Alto provides much better drill-down capabilities."
"There is room for improvement in the area of customer service."
"We have not taken Palo Alto's firewall management solution because it's too expensive and we don't feel it delivers significant value."
"Sangfor NGAF could improve by refining its application control policies, especially in addressing challenges with certain types of applications."
"An area of improvement for Sangfor NGAF could be in the field of reporting and logging."
"The solution should be able to work in a hybrid setup."
"The support for YouTube or the Internet is not enough."
"I believe that IAM and NGFW need to merge into a single box, instead of there being two separate box solutions."
"The tool is expensive."
"The interface and user experience are horrible."
"Sangfor has recently increased their prices."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 164 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 20th in Firewalls with 31 reviews. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 8.0. 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 Sangfor NGAF writes "Affordable, easy to configure firewall with fast, responsive support". Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Stormshield Network Security, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense, Check Point NGFW, Fortinet FortiOS and Huawei NGFW. See our Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls vs. Sangfor NGAF 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.