We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks Panorama and Tufin Orchestration Suite based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewall Security Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Firewalls: The application ID capabilities have been very useful for things like Active Directory, and not having to identify every port that Microsoft has decided to use."
"The application ID or App-ID feature is a good feature for us. We are also using IPS and content inspection features. The firewall can inspect the packages that are passing through my network."
"We use the solution for centralized monitoring."
"Our team has the option to make configuration changes at any given time."
"The most valuable aspect of Palo Alto Networks Panorama for me is the centralized management of multiple firewalls."
"The most valuable features of Palo Alto Networks Panorama are centralized management. We can manage all our firewalls."
"The solution doesn't need a proxy for the Prisma Access Firewall."
"It has shared profiles for all gateways. If I do not have Panorama, I need to create a separate profile for each and every gateway by logging into that particular gateway, but with Panorama, I can create a shared profile and just push it down to each and every gateway connected to it."
"It allows administrators to visualize the traffic flow, and troubleshoot when necessary."
"There are a lot of benefits to using the reporting. It gives us duplicate objects, duplicate services, shadow firewall rules, and the firewall rules not needed for a given number of days or months."
"The automated reporting on a regular basis is helping us to be compliant with legal requirements."
"My team uses it heavily to audit the changes made by junior engineers, going back and figuring out what they messed up, and correcting their mistakes. We generate reports for customer compliance and audits, as well as for regulatory audits."
"Tufin has improved my organization with its configuration management. It has tremendously improved the operation's success and has made life easier."
"Tufin has made handling firewall rule request tickets more centralized and easier to manage."
"The product is good at auditing the changes that we make in our environment."
"We use Tufin to clean up our firewall policies. This makes it a lot easier to find out the things that are wrong."
"The solution can improve by providing unique reports in relation to the function of which you choose the firewall to do."
"It could be easier to manage. In the future, it should be much easier because it's not very easy to manage. So in the next release, I think it should be much easier to manage, especially in the first configuration. It could also be more stable."
"Clients need to have an alarm and alert system from which they can forward the trigger. The product needs to improve its integration as well."
"The product could use some method of allowing for more customization and open integration with other controls."
"The general customer feedback is when saving the configuration, it takes a long time. That needs to be fixed. The troubleshooting, the debugging part is also a little bit of a pain. It's not user-friendly on the interface to do our debugging when comparing it with other firewalls, like Forcepoint."
"I would like more dashboard management."
"The solution should improve the speed at which they make changes on the system. Historically, they've been a bit slow in that respect. They should apply changes to the box quicker and more often."
"It's difficult to implement."
"I feel that the user interface is a bit dated."
"They need to offer more support to vendors, such as Cisco, Checkpoint, Fortinet, and Forcepoint."
"The network part of the solution could be improved. It's too hard because of the Tufin licensing model for the routing devices."
"I would rate their reports as a four out of ten. I don't like the way that they are shown. It is too hard to export and send them to our clients."
"There is room for improvement in the speed of Tufin. It is using so many of my VM resources and yet it is still a bit slow... Even though we are allocating 130 gigs of RAM, we still have to wait for a few minutes for a single report to be generated. Otherwise it would be a perfect tool."
"In the next release I would like to see better migration in the Cloud because that will allow more visibility in the network."
"The integration with different products needs to be improved."
"They are a little bit behind on some of their support for the Palo Alto firewall platform. I'd like to see that catch up, specifically around importing certain objects."
Palo Alto Networks Panorama is ranked 3rd in Firewall Security Management with 81 reviews while Tufin Orchestration Suite is ranked 2nd in Firewall Security Management with 180 reviews. Palo Alto Networks Panorama is rated 8.4, while Tufin Orchestration Suite is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks Panorama writes "Built-in proxy with the ability to maintain your own policies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tufin Orchestration Suite writes "A flexible, very secure solution that works well in Layer 2 environments". Palo Alto Networks Panorama is most compared with AWS Firewall Manager, AlgoSec, Fortinet FortiGate Cloud, Skybox Security Suite and FireMon Security Manager, whereas Tufin Orchestration Suite is most compared with AlgoSec, FireMon Security Manager, Skybox Security Suite, ManageEngine Firewall Analyzer and Cisco Defense Orchestrator. See our Palo Alto Networks Panorama vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite report.
See our list of best Firewall Security Management vendors.
We monitor all Firewall Security Management 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.
