We performed a comparison between Netgate pfSense and Palo Alto Networks PA-Series 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."The Intrusion Prevention System and the web filtering are both working well."
"It's very fast and easy to configure."
"The most valuable features are SD-WAN, application control, IPS control, and FortiSandbox."
"The simplicity of the product is great. It's very easy to use, which is a compliment we get all the time in terms of feedback."
"Unified Threat Management (UTM) features."
"The user interface is relatively easy. The devices are easy to deploy and figure out when you have experience with other security appliances."
"The customization potential is quite impressive."
"The solution can scale well."
"The ability to create a VPN allows me to monitor branch offices from a central location."
"An incomparable stability is achieved with other firewall systems."
"Open source and support are valuable. I have community support."
"It is a good firewall with good performance."
"Sophos Intercept X is scalable. Currently, we have almost 30 people using it in our company."
"I had some outages in the network and we provide services for our company. We sell mobile credits. The terminal gets access to our own server inside the network and if one internet fails, then the other one is still up and we have a back-up link on the devices."
"The most valuable feature, for instance, is the ease of migrating configurations between different Netgate devices housed in the same box."
"For everyday tasks, we just get alerts. It's anything that's suspicious, including from our Netgate. So, it's part of how we maintain cybersecurity in our school. This is working alongside our endpoint security solution."
"It is stable when you set up something and put it into production. Once it works, you don't have other tasks or actions to perform."
"The reporting feature and application ID functionality within Palo Alto Networks PA-Series are incredibly valuable to us."
"The documentation is great."
"Palo Alto blocks the new threats better than other tools."
"Palo Alto Networks firewalls offer single-mode panel processing with live scanning."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"It offers application-based policy enforcement. Palo Alto Networks firewalls help us recognize protocol anomalies, contrasting with other vendors that may require policies based on port numbers. With Palo Alto Networks, the port number isn't a constraint because their devices handle protocol traffic at Layer 7, allowing for accurate identification of protocol usage and port numbers. They can identify which protocol actually uses which port."
"The tool's most valuable feature is WildFire."
"I think that the infrastructure for the VPN could be improved. The way that it is bundled also made it difficult to use and sell as it is too expensive."
"The feedback that I have received is that the performance could be better, and the user experience is not as good compared to a previous solution we used. It could be more user-friendly. Of course, it still works fine for our operations."
"For the migration, everyone has a firewall in use and I am selling Fortinet. Typically, I am replacing another firewall. Previously, there was a tool available to convert configurations from one firewall, such as Palo Alto, to Fortinet, but this tool is no longer free. If it could be made free again, it would be very beneficial."
"There are just some services that aren't available. For example, the Ethernet or point-to-point protocols. They could add these services to their product offering - especially services for ISPs."
"I think they need to improve more in order to be a competitor with the leaders of the field."
"The solution could be more user friendly."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve if it had a cloud-managed solution."
"The Wi-Fi controller needs a lot of improvement."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"We have not had any problems with it, and we also do not have a need for any new features. If anything, its reporting can be better. Sophos has better reporting than pfSense. Sophos has more detailed information. pfSense is not as detailed. It is summarized."
"Adjustment in the interfaces: I had to adjust those interfaces manually and of course that is a great feature that you can restore it but it is immediately also one point for improvement. If you don't have to adjust, if it's just stamped and it works, that's great."
"In an upcoming release, the reporting could be more user-friendly. For example, the reporting in graphs and charts for the host can be cumbersome."
"The VPN feature of the solution could improve by adding better functionality and providing easier configure ability."
"The user interface can be improved to make it easier to add more features. And pfSense could be better integrated with other solutions, like antivirus."
"There are some bias issues and some intrusions in our network that have to be addressed. So, we're thinking of changing this firewall to something like a professional hardware-enabled firewall."
"We are at the moment looking to use it as a proxy service so that we can limit what websites people go and view and that sort of thing. That's an area I've struggled with a little bit at the moment and it could be a bit easier to set up."
"The interface is complex."
"I have found that the tool works well for me, but there are areas where security testing and protection could be improved, especially in virtual or cloud environments. However, in this project, once we deployed it, we haven't encountered any issues. The cost is currently manageable, but as we migrate fully into the cloud, additional features like capacity upgrading and improvements to hardware resources will be necessary, especially since our equipment consists of older generation switches and routers. So, I'm looking for additional capabilities in these areas."
"The product must provide multiple threat detection features."
"Pricing flexibility could be an aspect worth considering, as it has been a concern for some of our clients."
"The product's high prices are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is expensive. We would like to see additional threat hunting features."
"In future releases, maybe Palo Alto can enhance and enlarge their portfolio with SIEM solutions. They already have an endpoint protection solution, SOAR solution, that's fine. But when it comes to standalone IDS/IPS solution or email security solution, for example, we don't have any product in that category for Palo Alto."
"The support provided by the solution is not that good."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is ranked 16th in Firewalls with 28 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks PA-Series writes "Offers trained customer support, stability and ease of use ". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Palo Alto Networks PA-Series is most compared with OPNsense, SonicWall NSa, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Sophos XG and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Netgate pfSense vs. Palo Alto Networks PA-Series 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.
