We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiGate, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, and Netgate pfSense based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"It's super reliable. I don't think I've ever had a reliability issue with it."
"FortiGate is flexible and easy to use."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ability to work in proxy mode, which other solutions, such as Palo Alto cannot. There are some features that are better that come at no extra license or subscriptions cost, such as basic SD-WAN. The DLT is useful, other solutions have the same feature too, such as Palo Alto."
"The tool is a nice product and easy to handle. The software's user interface is also good. You can easily implement remote access in the solution."
"Fortigate is very scalable to serve our customers' needs. We have scaled already from fifty to more than a hundred instances of Fortinet FortiGate. Around 20 staff are required for deployment and maintenance, mostly engineers."
"We have been able to offer several services to customers in a single box."
"It has very easy management and an amazing ETM configuration."
"The GUI is simple to use."
"We mostly use the Layer 4 firewall functions: Access rules, NAT, and site-to-site IPsec VPN."
"CLI: Junos CLI is very easy to use, and it is also very easy to find back items in the configuration and to change them."
"The solution has been good for fulfilling our basic needs."
"The IPS functionality of Juniper SRX is useful in the telecom industry."
"It protects the data behind our switches."
"Using a Juniper CLI, you configure a "candidate configuration", then "commit" it to bring it live. If you do not like it or messed up something, you just "rollback" to the previous configuration. It can all be done in a matter of minutes. This is super handy once you get use to it."
"The main features are safeguarding their data and ensuring robust security services for organizational data."
"Its scalability is a strong point."
"This solution has increased the level of security, given us more control, provided a deep insight into network traffic, and is a great VPN solution."
"The ability to create a VPN allows me to monitor branch offices from a central location."
"I can manage it easily by myself."
"I mostly like all of it. Whatever we use is valuable."
"Centralized administration with multiple services, which allows for execution in several important functionalities of information security."
"A valuable feature is that the solution is open source."
"The performance and functionality are good."
"I would like some automated custom reporting."
"The monitor and the visibility, in this proxy, is very weak."
"The non-error conserve mode has room for improvement."
"If they could extend their fabric towards other vendor environments for integration, that would be great."
"It could use more templates for third-party site-to-site VPN setups other than FortiGate and Cisco."
"Some configuration elements cannot be easily altered once created."
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve the integration with Active Directory. Additionally, I would like to have a Cloud Controller, such as they do in the Cisco Meraki solution."
"To some degree, it's almost a question as to why some of this stuff isn't simpler. For example, for an AP deployment, while it's integrated, the number of steps that you have to go through in order to get the AP up, seems like a lot."
"The CPU switch could be improved for a better overall performance of traffic flow."
"I would like to see endpoint control and endpoint testing security."
"There is room for improvement in scalability and performance. It's scalable and reliable, but when using next-generation firewall features, the performance decreases significantly for Juniper SRX."
"Juniper SRX is stable, but it could improve. FortiGate has better stability than Juniper SRX."
"In some cases, customers encounter issues related to network interfaces, while others prioritize security concerns."
"The setup process should be improved."
"The solution could cost less. It's a bit expensive right now."
"The solution isn't very granular or detailed."
"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."
"I have been using WireGuard VPN because it is a lot faster and more secure than an open VPN. However, in the latest version of pfSense, they have removed this feature, which is one of the main features that I need. They should include this feature."
"The integration should be improved."
"pfSense has some limitations in detecting site sessions. We want to control internet usage based on sites and their content, and pfSense doesn't perform this function."
"The hotspot and the portal feature in this solution are not stable for WiFi access. We use it at least once or twice every day and it crashes. Some modules can be better by improving detection and having new updates. Additionally, we have some issues with clustering and load balancing that could improve."
"User interface is a little clumsy."
"Also, the GUI is helpful, but it's not user-friendly. It's complicated. It should be more intuitive for the average user and have an excellent graphical view. Of course, the user will typically know about network administration, but it still should be easy to understand."
"The access control aspect of the product could be improved."