Choosing the right firewall isn’t just a matter of specs or brand loyalty—it’s about architecture, deployment goals, and long-term manageability. As someone who has deployed both Fortinet and Palo Alto Networks (PANW) firewalls across various enterprise environments, I want to share my practical insights on how these two giants stack up against each other—model by model.
This guide is specifically written for network security architects, consultants, and IT decision-makers who are planning migrations, greenfield deployments, or large-scale architecture designs. I’ll cover:
- Real-world use cases
- Licensing considerations
- SD-WAN and VPN capabilities
- Throughput benchmarks
- Operational differences
- Detailed comparison charts
Let’s dive in.
What Matters When Choosing a Firewall?
Before jumping into specs, here are the most critical factors that should guide your firewall selection:
1. Business Use Case
- Branch office vs. headquarters vs. data center
- Greenfield vs. migration project
- Compliance and visibility requirements
2. Performance Needs
- Required throughput (Firewall / Threat Prevention / VPN)
- Number of users and devices
- Concurrent sessions and new session rates
3. Security Subscriptions
- Do you need advanced threat protection, sandboxing, or DNS filtering?
- What’s included in the base license, and what’s an add-on?
4. Architecture & Management
- Integration with SD-WAN, cloud, and zero trust architecture
- Centralized logging, HA deployment, and management interfaces
5. Operational Simplicity
- Ease of configuration and updates
- Staff familiarity with CLI or GUI
- Day-to-day usability for troubleshooting and monitoring
Entry-Level Showdown: FortiGate 60F vs PA-440
These two models are popular choices for branch deployments and SMB environments. Let’s break down what makes them different.
🔍 Key Differences at a Glance
| Feature | FortiGate 60F | PA-440 |
|---|---|---|
| Firewall Throughput | 1 Gbps | 2.6 Gbps |
| Threat Prevention Throughput | 700 Mbps | 1.2 Gbps |
| IPsec VPN Throughput | 6.5 Gbps | 1.1 Gbps |
| Concurrent Sessions | 700,000 | 200,000 |
| New Sessions/Second | 35,000 | 34,000 |
📌 Real-World Observations
- PA-440 includes built-in storage, making it capable of local log retention without requiring an additional appliance.
- FortiGate 60F doesn’t have onboard logging unless you buy FortiAnalyzer or choose the 61F (which has integrated SSD).
- Fortinet offers a WiFi-enabled 60F variant, which is perfect for branches that don’t use Meraki or Ubiquiti access points. PANW doesn’t support built-in wireless at all.
🔒 Licensing
- Fortinet includes basic UTM features in its bundle (AV, IPS, App Control).
- Palo Alto requires GlobalProtect and SD-WAN licenses as separate subscriptions.
🛠 Operational Insight
- Fortinet is faster to configure and more intuitive for smaller teams.
- Palo Alto offers deeper inspection (App-ID, Content-ID) but requires more time to set up and manage.
🧠 Verdict: If you want a fast-to-deploy, feature-rich firewall with SD-WAN and VPN without extra licensing, FortiGate 60F (or 61F) is your go-to. If your focus is advanced threat detection and built-in logging, PA-440 delivers better L7 performance out-of-the-box.
Mid-Range Comparison: FortiGate 100F vs PA-1420
When scaling up to larger branches or HQs with heavier traffic, these models become ideal candidates.
🔍 Key Specs Comparison
| Feature | FortiGate 100F | PA-1420 |
|---|---|---|
| Firewall Throughput | 20 Gbps | 9.5 Gbps |
| Threat Prevention Throughput | 1 Gbps | 6.2 Gbps |
| IPsec VPN Throughput | 11.5 Gbps | 5.6 Gbps |
| Max Concurrent Sessions | 1.5 Million | 1.4 Million |
Note: Fortinet publishes separate throughput values based on inspection mode (NGFW, IPS, etc.), so always review fine print when comparing directly.
🔌 Port and Interface Comparison
| Port Type | FortiGate 100F | PA-1420 |
|---|---|---|
| GE RJ45 Ports | 12 | 12 |
| GE SFP Slots | 4 | 2 |
| GE SFP+ (10Gbps) Slots | 2 | 1 (HA only) |
| Dedicated HA Port | Yes | Yes |
| Dedicated MGMT Port | Yes | Yes |
📌 Deployment Observations
- Fortinet 100F offers greater VPN throughput—excellent for hub deployments or branch aggregation.
- PA-1420’s dedicated HA and MGMT ports support more refined HA deployments, critical for uptime in active-active setups.
- Palo Alto has better L7 inspection capabilities, making it ideal for app-heavy environments with strict security needs.
SD-WAN & Remote Access VPN: Built-in or Licensed?
Fortinet
- Native SD-WAN included.
- 1000+ IPSec VPN tunnels without extra licenses.
- Excellent for hybrid/multi-site branches.
Palo Alto
- GlobalProtect (remote access VPN) is licensed separately.
- SD-WAN requires additional Prisma SD-WAN license.
- Superior integration with Prisma Access for large-scale, cloud-based architecture.
Day-to-Day Operation: Which One Is Easier?Here’s what I’ve found after managing both vendors in production environments:
Fortinet
- ✅ Easier to configure out-of-the-box.
- ✅ Faster to deploy updates and policies.
- ✅ GUI is simple and responsive.
- ✅ CLI is clean and readable.
Palo Alto
- ✅ Better logging and troubleshooting via Panorama.
- ✅ Deep application awareness (App-ID, User-ID, Content-ID).
- ❌ Slower to configure if you’re not familiar with its architecture.
- ❌ More complex for beginners.
⚙️ Verdict: Fortinet wins on simplicity and speed. Palo Alto wins on inspection and policy intelligence.
Security Subscriptions: What’s Included?
Fortinet (UTM Bundle)
- Antivirus, IPS, Web Filter, Application Control
- FortiSandbox (add-on)
- FortiGuard Labs threat intelligence
Palo Alto (Security Subscriptions)
- Threat Prevention (IPS, AV, anti-spyware)
- WildFire (sandboxing)
- URL Filtering
- DNS Security
- IoT Security (add-on)
- Advanced licenses for GlobalProtect & SD-WAN
💡 For full threat detection capabilities, Palo Alto requires multiple licensed subscriptions. Fortinet bundles more features by default.
Recommendations Based on Use Case
| Use Case | Recommended Firewall | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Small Branch with WiFi | FortiGate 60F/61F | Built-in wireless, fast setup |
| Remote VPN Hub | FortiGate 100F | 1000+ VPN tunnels without license |
| App-Intensive Environment | PA-440 / PA-1420 | Strong Layer 7 visibility and App-ID |
| Zero Trust Network Access | Palo Alto + Prisma Access | Tight ZTNA integration |
| Quick & Cost-Efficient Setup | Fortinet | Fewer moving parts, included SD-WAN |
Final Thoughts
Both Fortinet and Palo Alto Networks offer outstanding firewall solutions, but the right choice depends on your architecture and operational goals.
- If you want fast, simple deployment with excellent VPN and SD-WAN out-of-the-box, Fortinet shines.
- If you need granular traffic inspection, cloud-native ZTNA, and scalable security subscriptions, Palo Alto stands out.
Ultimately, firewall selection should align with:
- Your security posture goals
- IT team skillset
- Integration roadmap
- Licensing model tolerance
What’s Next?In my next post, I’ll walk you through a deep dive into FortiGuard vs Palo Alto’s Threat Prevention & WildFire—breaking down what each subscription really gives you.
Have questions about firewall sizing, migration planning, or vendor evaluation? Let us know
