Our firewall guy thinks Palo Alto firewalls are really good and I don't dispute that they are. But I may just show him this tomorrow morning as, another perspective never hurts.
I've used Palo Alto, Fortinet, and Cisco firewalls.
Cisco is the worst by far, the Fortinet are not fun to use but have an incredible $/performance ratio, and the Palo Alto ones are by far the most expensive but also the most enjoyable to use.
They're certainly not without their faults, and we've had issues with them that took time to remedy, but I wouldn't trade them for anything else I've seen so far from competitors.
Did you just publish the result of a benchmark or performance comparison test you ran to establish the difference in $/performance ratio between competitors?
If so, I have bad news for your license compliance...
That's a good thing to warn people of, but feels like a complete red flag in a license. If a company isn't willing to stand by their product in reviews, then that should be a reason to disqualify their product from consideration.
(I don't subscribe to the sub nor have I posted anything in it. I do read it from time to time and find the comments alright from an end-user (ie. sysadmin) point of view.)
FWIW, I know a Checkpoint guy and he swears they’re the best. I haven’t had a chance to do a comparison with him yet but the impression I get is that Checkpoint gets overlooked more than anything so they don’t do great on r/networking.
There is another guy in this thread who gives a good review saying Checkpoint got good in response to competition. Forti is the value option. And, FTD is looked down upon while ASA has some niches.
So, PAN, Checkpoint, and Fortinet appears to be the leaders.
