We performed a comparison between Perimeter 81 and pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Perimeter 81 offers single sign-on, multiple networks, a user-friendly interface, fast and secure VPN, reliable connection, privacy, efficient customer service, mobile and desktop support, a lightweight mobile app, and implementation of SD-WAN and zero trust access. pfSense is praised for its ability to block IP addresses, user-friendly dashboards, open-source nature, scanning and filtering capabilities, stability, customization abilities, cost-effectiveness, availability of plugins and add-ons, simplicity, flexibility, and scalability. Both options provide a range of useful features for users.
Perimeter 81 has room for improvement in terms of specifying various sites, incorporating a separate login option for bypassing website logins, allowing customization of interface colors, enhancing the user interface, providing notifications for session timeouts, and enhancing network traffic distribution. pfSense could benefit from the addition of instructional videos, a more user-friendly web interface, stability improvements, integration with a mobile app, and enhanced reporting and graphing features.
Service and Support: Perimeter 81 receives positive feedback for their efficient and useful customer service, while pfSense's support garners mixed opinions, with some users praising it and others noting its limited assistance and reliance on online communities.
Ease of Deployment: Perimeter 81 is praised for its straightforward and user-friendly initial setup, although it may become more complex in a hybrid environment. pfSense is generally easy to set up, but some users recommend clearer guidance or a configuration wizard for improved usability.
Pricing: Perimeter 81 has a flexible setup cost based on specific needs. In contrast, pfSense provides a free open-source solution and offers paid support. The pricing for pfSense varies depending on the setup.
ROI: Perimeter 81 offers the opportunity for a favorable return on investment through various benefits such as lower supply expenses, enhanced engineering, decreased repair costs, and improved product stability. pfSense is highly regarded for its cost efficiency and significant savings, making it a valuable option for businesses operating with limited financial resources.
Comparison Results: Perimeter 81 is the preferred product over pfSense. It is praised for its easy and intuitive setup process, single sign-on capabilities, multiple networks feature, user-friendly interface, fast and secure VPN, and efficient customer service. Perimeter 81 offers a more user-friendly and efficient experience according to the reviews.
"The most valuable features are the possibility of having one fabric for switching on security."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ease of use and there are several operating systems that can include the hardware capacities. In the newer releases, the resources were more useful because they were included in the operating system."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Quota."
"Overall, the pricing of the solution is very good. The product offers good value."
"It's quite comfortable to handle the FortiGate firewall."
"The product is easy to use and is stable. The SV1 functionality is a benefit."
"The GUI is easy to understand."
"The plugins or add-ons are most valuable. Sometimes, they are free of charge, and sometimes, you have to pay for them, but you can purchase or download very valuable plugins or add-ons to perform internal testing of your network and simulate a denial-of-service attack or whichever attack you want to simulate. You can also remote and monitor your network and see where the gap is. Did you forget a printer port? Most attacks at the moment are happening through printers, and they can tell you immediately that you forgot to close the port of the printer. There are more than one million printers that are in danger, and everybody knows that hackers are using them to enter the network. So, you can download plugins to protect your network."
"I like the connectivity to the open VPN. It's very smooth."
"A free firewall that is a good network security appliance."
"I mostly like all of it. Whatever we use is valuable."
"I handle the scanning for the finance department. I recently encountered an issue with the PCL bills, our company bills. I resolved the matter, cleared the bill, and received calls regarding it using pfsense.The user interface is extremely user-friendly, which is why we use it across various plant sites. Our IT representatives at the plants find it easy to use and manage because of its straightforward interface."
"This solution has helped our organization by protecting our network from attacks."
"My technicians find the pfSense's web interface very useful. It is very easy to use. pfSense is very reliable and stable. We like the OpenVPN clients that can be deployed using pfSense very much."
"Providing access and security allows our company employees to work from home and remotely."
"Their split tunneling feature has been very valuable to our company since implementing the Perimeter 81 solution."
"Perimeter 81 is very pretty."
"It has provided a seamless gateway to much-needed platforms."
"The solution provides us with an easy way to configure and join the VPN with Perimeter 81."
"The ease of use not only translates to quick adoption rates - it also ensures that our employees remain compliant with our cybersecurity protocols, enhancing the overall security posture of our organization."
"Perimeter 81 provides a very secure and non-disruptive experience."
"It connects quickly and stays connected. The user interface is pretty neat too. The app has in-house support with user guides that give you step-by-step walkthroughs on navigating the app. In addition, there is a live chat feature that offers prompt assistance on the go."
"In terms of what could be improved, the SD-WAN is quite difficult, because if you install the new box, 15 is okay, but if you change from an old configuration, if there is already configuration and a policy when you change to SD-WAN, you must change the whole policy that you see in the interface."
"I feel that the reporting needs to be improved."
"I would suggest that Fortinet add sandboxing to their solution."
"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."
"Its reporting and pricing need improvement."
"The improvement is related to logs. Instead of the CLI, we should be able to have more insights into the logs of the firewall in the GUI."
"Some of the filtering is not robust, you can escape it with a VPN. Some of the users bypass some of the filters. It catches some but it also misses some, that area could be improved. It's functioning reasonably but there's room for improvement in that area."
"One area for improvement is the performance on bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"It would be great to add more to security."
"I would like to see pfSense integrate WireGuard. Currently, pfSense uses OpenVPN, and there's nothing wrong with it, but WireGuard is a lot leaner and meaner."
"Could be simplified for new users."
"The stability could be improved."
"It was difficult to configure our web printer through the solution. This process could be easier. Additionally, integration with SD-WAN solution."
"The solution requires a lot of administration."
"One concern I have with Netgate pfSense is related to packet filtering. Specifically, issues can arise with certain functionalities like GP, and, at times, there may be bugs."
"The GUI. There are TONS of plugins for pfSense, as such, if a user wants to add quite a bit of functionality, the GUI will feel a little congested."
"Offering in-app explanations detailing what each feature does, its benefits and potential use cases can help users better understand and utilize the tool to its full potential."
"The overall UI could be improved and updated to bring a simpler feel to the application."
"I have found that the log-in/out process takes quite some time."
"What would be useful would be a notification/warning that a session is due to timeout after exceeding the default connection limit."
"Currently, I am not able to define a different country or location, which can result in negative experiences as the tool is being recognized by websites and this can make it difficult to access them or force me to disable the program temporarily."
"In order to have to bypass the login using the website, a good feature for Perimeter 81 to have is a login instance in the Perimeter 81 application. I'm using a Mac and we don't have that functionality."
"A Google Chrome extension would be handy instead of logging into the app."
"The platform still lacks relevant dashboards and the ability to customize them based on our needs."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Perimeter 81 is ranked 11th in Firewalls with 22 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Perimeter 81 is rated 9.2. 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 Perimeter 81 writes "Great SAML and SCIM support with the ability to deploy site-2-site tunnels with specific IP restrictions". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Perimeter 81 is most compared with Zscaler Zero Trust Exchange, Cato SASE Cloud Platform, Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks, Cloudflare Access and Check Point Quantum SASE. See our Netgate pfSense vs. Perimeter 81 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.
