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.
"FortiGate Secure SD-WAN includes best-of-breed next-generation firewall (NGFW) security, SD-WAN, advanced routing, and WAN optimization capabilities, delivering a security-driven networking WAN edge transformation in a unified offering."
"The Intrusion Prevention System and the web filtering are both working well."
"There are great templates, so you don't have to customize them if you don't want to. You do have the option to custom create some folders and some reports, however, with what is there, you don't really need to go through extra effort, as they already give you a lot of predefined views of reports and so forth."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the SD-WAN and their IP4 policy."
"Whenever we raise a complaint with FortiGate, their response and resolution times are minimal."
"It can expand easily."
"Good load balancing feature."
"Overall, the pricing of the solution is very good. The product offers good value."
"The simplicity of configuration is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"When you try to create an IP or when you have an alert about when a website is banned, these features are helpful."
"The solution is easy to set up."
"Simple to manage."
"Real Auto VPN with load balancer without needing a public IP. It is simple and functional."
"I am happy with the technical support for the solution. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten."
"What I like best about Meraki MX is that it's easy to deploy remotely. The product works. It has automatic updates. I also like that Meraki MX is a brilliant device. You turn it on, stick the key in there, activate it, and then you're done. Meraki MX does what my customers need at the end of the day, so I also like that."
"WAN optimization is the best feature of the solution."
"The most valuable features of pfSense are the reports, monitoring, filtration, and blocking incoming and outgoing traffic."
"The solution is fairly scalable when it comes to integrating with other applications and data sets."
"We generally use it because it's cheap. When we need something more robust we use Barracuda and Sony Wireless Routers. For certain clients, we use pfSense because it's compatible with the VoIP platform."
"The most valuable feature, for instance, is the ease of migrating configurations between different Netgate devices housed in the same box."
"What I found most valuable is the cost of the platform, the flexibility of the platform, and the fact that the ongoing fees are not there as they are with the competitor. Some people may think you're taking a risk with using Opensource. I think it just provides the end user, specifically for us small, medium business providers of services, the flexibility we need at the right cost to provide them a higher end, almost enterprise type service."
"It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good."
"Creation of certificates and the facility to administer services are valuable features."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"The scalability could be better."
"The pricing could be reduced or include the first year warranty."
"Currently, without the additional reporting module, we only have access to basic reporting."
"Compared to some other products, the DLP is not at par for the moment."
"In the future, I would like to see improvements made to cloud-based management."
"The support team for Fortinet FortiGate needs to be more customer friendly."
"Stability and technical support are the two major issues I have found with Fortinet."
"Technical support for this solution can be improved."
"Direct logging is something that can be introduced. In the absence of cloud management, the possibility of local configurations and on-premise logins becomes restricted. This limitation stands as a primary concern. When it comes to resolving issues, the inability to access login options hampers troubleshooting efforts. The stability is noteworthy; but when compared to alternative products, its stability is comparatively lower. Additionally, certain limitations are observed in terms of remote control. Price-wise, the solution stands out for its competitive and cost-effective nature compared to other alternatives. Operationally, it is user-friendly and requires minimal effort from administrators, making configuration hassle-free."
"The product doesn't support route summarization and BGP dynamic routing protocol."
"Pricing is an area where the solution lacks since it is an expensive tool."
"In the next release, because the security is pretty basic, I think they could include additional security features."
"The security is not as strong as it could be"
"An area for improvement in Meraki MX is that it needs some provision, as supplying the unit through Cisco can be tedious at times, but as far as the product itself and its offerings, Meraki MX is five-star all the way."
"In general, the SD-WAN feature needs to be improved. The load sharing and load balancing of the traffic should be improved. I have had some problems with these features in the past."
"We do not have account managers in our region for the solution. Some governments don't use the product since it is attached to the internet."
"I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial."
"The Netgate forums and community don’t provide extensive discussions and topics related to every pfSense service."
"This solution is good for small businesses but it is not as stable as other competitors such as Fortinet."
"The main problem with pfSense is that we have to use proxy solutions."
"A malware blocker should be included. I do not know if it is included yet. However, until now, we have not experienced a large malware invasion."
"I'd like to find something in pfSense that is more specific to URL filtering. We have customers who would like to filter their web traffic. They would like to be able to say to their employees, "You can surf the web, but you cannot get access to Facebook or other social media," or "You can surf the web, but you're not allowed to gamble or watch porn on the web." My technicians say that doing this kind of stuff with pfSense nowadays is not easy. They can implement some filters using IP addresses but not by using the names of the domains and categories. So, we are not able to exclude some categories from the allowed traffic, such as porn, gambling, etc. To do that, we have to use another product and another web filter that uses DNS. I know that there are some third-party products that could work with pfSense, but I'd like the native pfSense solution to do that."
"I would like to see different graphs available in the reporting."
"The main problem with pfSense is that it lacks adequate ransomware protection."
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, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Check Point NGFW. 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.
