Palo Alto's Prisma Access SASE offers robust security features, yet its integration complexity, stemming from its origin as standalone services, prompts careful consideration by MSPs.
|
No |
What to look for? |
Exium |
Palo Alto |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Primary Focus and Portfolio Complexity | Purpose-built for SASE, Exium offers a streamlined solution, contrasting with Palo Alto's primary focus on network security firewalls, resulting in a complicated and diverse portfolio with Prisma Access getting lost in the mix. | Palo Alto's Prisma Access is part of a complex portfolio, primarily known for network security firewalls, making it challenging for customers to navigate and understand the SASE offering. |
| 2 | Cloud-Native Architecture | Cloud-native architecture ensures fast deployment, ease of management, and standards-based security, offering a modern and efficient solution for MSPs. | Prisma Access is built on a legacy hardware firewall foundation, lacking the agility and efficiency of a cloud-native approach, resulting in complexity in deployment and potential cost inefficiencies. |
| 3 | Integration of Security and Networking | Integrates security and networking from the ground up, providing a unified solution, contrasted with Prisma Access, which is bolted onto CloudGenix SD-WAN, leading to a lack of seamless integration. | Prisma Access lacks the integration of security and networking from the ground up, resulting in a less cohesive solution, unlike Exium's purpose-built approach. |
| 4 | Deployment Complexity | Designed for ease of deployment and management due to its cloud-native architecture, providing a simpler experience for MSPs and clients. | Prisma Access is reported to be complex to deploy and operate, potentially leading to challenges for users seeking a straightforward and efficient solution. |
| 5 | Pricing Transparency | Offers simple and transparent pricing, ensuring clarity and predictability for MSPs and clients. | Prisma Access pricing is criticized for being high with additional charges, potentially causing confusion and unexpected costs for customers. |
| 6 | True Cloud Service and Latency Concerns | True cloud-native processing engine minimizes latency and ensures a more efficient SASE solution for MSPs. | Prisma Access processes packets and security in separate appliances, leading to increased latency and marginal differences from traditional appliance-based deployments. |
| 7 | Management Options and Subscription Requirements | Single-pane-of-glass management ensures a unified experience, contrasted with Prisma Access, which supports two management options, potentially causing complexity. | Prisma Access requires a subscription to Cortex Data Lake for storing network logs, introducing additional subscription requirements. |
| 8 | Configuration Flexibility and Future-Proofing | Flexible and future-proof design allows for scalability and adaptability to changing customer needs. | Complex configurations and dependencies on multiple appliances may hinder flexibility and future-proofing, potentially limiting scalability. |
Exium's Cloud-Native SASE solution emerges as the preferred choice for MSPs over Palo Alto's Prisma Access SASE. The advantages of Exium's purpose-built, cloud-native approach, seamless integration of security and networking, ease of deployment, transparent pricing, and a unified management experience make it a more efficient and modern solution for MSPs and their SMB/Mid-Market clients. In contrast, Prisma Access, with its complex portfolio, legacy architecture, deployment challenges, and potential cost inefficiencies, may pose hurdles for users seeking a straightforward and effective SASE solution.