We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The main difference between the two solutions is that Meraki MX is expensive, while pfSense is an open-source solution and is free of charge. In addition, Meraki’s monitoring capabilities could use improvement.
"I like Fortinet FortiGate's antispam filter, SPN, and clustering features."
"This product is definitely scalable."
"The stability of the solution is excellent, as it is with other Fortinet products."
"It's very fast and easy to configure."
"The most valuable feature is the interface, which is very user friendly. We are utilizing most of the features, like content filtering. The firewall is powerful."
"The next-generation firewall is great."
"We were looking for the VPN feature and controlling the inflow and outflow of all the traffic within the site and across the sites. We are also using it for the VPN and VLANs."
"FortiGate firewalls are easy to manage through a user-friendly web interface. They also have advanced features like DDoS and DLP. However, I wouldn't recommend enabling all of these features on one device because it can cause performance issues."
"The solution is good for load balancing."
"The product is quite secure, easy to manage, and well-connected with other devices."
"Ease of management is the best thing about the solution."
"You can use your web browser to do the configuration which is easier than Cisco CLI transcripts."
"It is a robust SD-WAN solution."
"We work also with domain control (DC) from Microsoft or Amazon. We use a whole virtual appliance with Meraki."
"The security level of our organization has changed by using Meraki MX Firewalls. We didn't have the UTM before, but now we have sandboxing, tray scanning, attack preventions and monitorization. Our security level has improved."
"Meraki MX offers advanced filtration options, plus it behaves like a router and a firewall at the same time."
"The firewall sensor is highly effective, and it's easy to deploy. You can deploy pfSense with limited hardware resources. It's not necessary to have an appliance with much RAM to make it work. It's cost-effective and performs well."
"Its scalability is a strong point."
"The initial setup was simple and fast."
"There is good documentation with a fantastic community and enterprise support."
"Super easy to manage. Anyone who has been working with firewalls can handle it."
"The scalability is very good, where you can do an HA configuration and then bring in another box, if necessary."
"The most valuable feature, for instance, is the ease of migrating configurations between different Netgate devices housed in the same box."
"Sophos Intercept X is scalable. Currently, we have almost 30 people using it in our company."
"The Web-filter in this solution is not very good."
"Its reporting and pricing need improvement."
"The integration with third-party tools may be something that they should work on."
"The cloud features and integration could be improved."
"The cloud management and automation capability could be improved."
"Scalability is one of the disadvantages. When it comes to scalability, you have to actually change the box. If you want to upgrade it, you need to actually change the existing box and probably you take the system off to other sites."
"Technical support needs to be improved."
"Stability and technical support are the two major issues I have found with Fortinet."
"You cannot use switching behaviors as you see on the Meraki switch."
"The whole Cisco Meraki range requires easier access for cameras. For a security center, it would be helpful to have easier access to cameras through the portal. Its licensing cost could also be better."
"We feel that Cisco provides smaller features, with fewer possibilities versus other solutions out there."
"The product is quite complex to set up."
"I do not have the kind of feature I need for SSL decryption in Meraki MX. It would be great to see the SSL decryption feature in Meraki MX."
"I need more UTM protection security features."
"We had minor issues with Meraki MX. We had a couple of RMAs, so that could be an area for improvement, but in terms of how the RMAs went, the turnaround time and getting those back into redeployment were quick. Another area for improvement in Meraki MX is that when you're scaling for multiple locations, you need to use the same model, but the model you'd need is only available for a short time. The specific model you require could be out of stock, or Meraki isn't making that model anymore, so Meraki should improve that."
"We can’t access GUI management and CLI opening features when the Internet is unavailable."
"It needs to be more secure."
"The solution’s interface must 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."
"It needs better parsing of logs. At the moment, you have to use an external server for this if you want a deeper analysis."
"More documentation would be great, especially on new features because sometimes, when new features come out, you don't get to understand them right off the bat. You have to really spend a lot of time understanding them. So, more documentation would be awesome."
"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."
"Layer 7 advanced firewall features are not included in the solution."
"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."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 57 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ and SonicWall NSa, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and Zyxel Unified Security Gateway. See our Meraki MX vs. Netgate pfSense 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.
