We performed a comparison between Netgate pfSense and Palo Alto Networks K2-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 base firewall features are quite valuable to us."
"FortiGate is on the cheaper end, and it offers good value."
"It is easy to manage, and it doesn't need much knowledge from the team. It is a stable device, and there are many features that are included out of the box."
"It's inexpensive compared to some of the other technology out there."
"Virtual Domains (VDOMs) are a feature that we found valuable."
"It's an easy solution to set up."
"The IPS is good. It protect my network from attackers."
"The performance is good."
"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."
"The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, are the most important."
"My company mainly works in the health and educational domain, schools and universities. I prevent the improper use of content from schools and universities. I defend the medical records for the patients in our hospitals. That is the main use case for me for the firewall."
"Is good at blocking IP addresses."
"The solution has good customization abilities and plenty of features."
"Its scalability is a strong point."
"The concurrent users are perfect for us."
"It is a good firewall with good performance."
"I like the tool's WildFire feature."
"One of the most valuable features is Palo Alto's firewall management. We find it easier to manage the firewall centrally."
"It is a stable solution."
"I have found the threat profile feature valuable."
"The company is inventive and always adds a lot of great features."
"We've found the solution offers us good stability."
"Everything I could possibly want has already been implanted in the new version."
"Simple integrations with the domain controllers and other inventories"
"Cisco Meraki products are rising very quickly in the cloud and the connected era. Meraki products offer much better ROI, upgradability, and manageability."
"They need to improve their technical support."
"The graphical user interface of Fortinet's FortiGate product does not function well with text-based interfaces."
"Currently, FortiGate is providing SSL VPN. But they're missing some features that are available in Palo Alto's SSL VPN."
"Their software support needs improvement. I would prefer to have better support for bug fixes. Sometimes, we open a ticket, and it is very difficult to get a solution. Specifically, we are not at all happy with their support for load balancing."
"Its filtering is sometimes too precise or strict. We sometimes have to bypass and authorize some of the sites, but they get blocked. We know that they are trusted sites, but they are blocked, and we don't know why."
"One area for improvement is the performance on the bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"The biggest "gotcha" is that if the client purchases what they call the UTM shared bundle, which has unified threat management on both, it's not as easy to manage if you have more than one firewall."
"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."
"The integration could be improved."
"For the third-party packages, I'd rather have it built-in, like a core feature of pfSense, part of the core model."
"Their support could be better in terms of the response time."
"The configuration of the solution is a bit difficult."
"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."
"They could improve their commercial stance and be more agile when it comes to the commercial pricing of enterprise deals."
"Many people have problems setting up the web cache for the web system."
"Sometimes there are interactions with support or the provider that are not ideal."
"If we have issues, they take anywhere from two days to a week to respond. I even wrote to their CEO because there was no response. When it comes to support, this is the worst company."
"The scalability of Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is good. It is good for larger environments over smaller ones."
"Palo Alto releases a lot of bug fixes for their firewalls, which means it's necessary to do frequent upgrades. They should work on decreasing their bugs so that upgrades aren't needed so often."
"It is recommended that the Palo Alto Networks K2-Series be implemented step by step for the Panorama. Sometimes we can't overwrite the configurations because it fails."
"There are a lot of bugs in this solution."
"We had some issues with upgrading in the past. They could make the process easier."
"The password function of the solution could be improved. Additionally, some of the processes take too long to complete."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is ranked 28th in Firewalls with 29 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is rated 8.4. 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 K2-Series writes "Easy to implement and manage, and the documentation is good". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Palo Alto Networks K2-Series is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. See our Netgate pfSense vs. Palo Alto Networks K2-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.
