We performed a comparison between pfSense and Sangfor NGAF 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."We find all of its features very useful. Its main features are policies and access lists. We use both of them, and we also use routing."
"They are easy to maintain."
"The most important feature is the VPN connection."
"The high-availability and remote VPN features are most valuable."
"You can also put everything into a nice, neat, little package, as far as configuration goes. I was formerly a command-line guy with the ASA, and I was a little nervous about dealing with a GUI interface versus a command line, but after I did my first deployment, I got a lot more comfortable with doing it GUI based."
"I have found the stability of this solution really good. This is why I use it."
"Another benefit has been user integration. We try to integrate our policies so that we can create policies based on active users. We can create policies based on who is accessing a resource instead of just IP addresses and ports."
"The remote access, VPN, and ACL features are valuable. We are using role-based access for individuals."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"I like pfSense's security features."
"The intrusion detection feature is the most valuable. It is an open-source firewall, so there is a lot of material on it. I also find the open VPN capability very nice. It is pretty customizable. The clustering and the high availability are the two biggest things to be able to get out of a firewall."
"The GUI is easy to understand."
"The solution is very easy to use and has a very nice GUI."
"I like the connectivity to the open VPN. It's very smooth."
"I am happy with the EPLS, the radius, and I am happy with the captive portal."
"The solution is very easy to use and configure."
"We've found the technical support to be helpful."
"In four steps one can configure the entire firewall."
"We can utilize our own network rather than paying for a private one."
"The most valuable features are the WAN optimization, the internet access gateway (IAG), and the central console, which allows us to implement on their firewall."
"The absolute best part of Sangfor NGAF is their support. It's a 24/7 support channel, and the last time I requested their assistance I got a reply within three minutes. They helped solve the problem immediately."
"Sangfor NGAF works accordingly with our customers. The solution has good performance, easy to use, and integrates well with the endpoints."
"Sangfor is a good solution that provides a WAF and firewall solution. Most other vendors, like Sophos and Fortinet and Cisco, only provide one solution. That's a valuable feature of Sangfor."
"Particularly good in the DPI where we can inspect inbound and outbound traffic."
"In terms of what could be improved, I would say the UTM part should be more integrated for one price, because if you buy ASA from Cisco, you need to buy another contract service from Cisco as a filter for the dictionary of attacks. In Fortinet, you buy a firewall and you have it all."
"The application detection feature of this solution could be improved as well as its integration with other solutions."
"Implementations require the use of a console. It would help if the console was embedded."
"It is my understanding that they are in the process of discontinuing this device."
"I would like to see improvement when you create policies on Snort 3 IPS on Cisco Firepower. On Snort 2, it was more like a UI page where you had some multiple choices where you could tweak your config. On Snort 3, the idea is more to build some rules on the text file or JSON file, then push it. So, I would like to see a lot of improvements here."
"We only have an issue with time sync with Cisco ASA and NTP. If the time is out of sync, it will be a disaster for the failover."
"One area that could be improved is its logging functionality. Your logs are usually displayed on the screen, but if you want to go back one or two days, then you need another solution in place because those logs are overwritten within minutes."
"It needs to provide the next-generation firewall features that other vendors provide, like data analytics, telemetry, and deep packet inspection."
"ClamAV AntiVirus can cause some crashes. That service should be improved."
"In an upcoming release, the reporting could be more user-friendly. For example, the reporting in graphs and charts for the host can be cumbersome."
"The configuration of the solution is a bit difficult."
"If you want to take advantage of all of the solution's options, you need to have a bit of a technical background. It's not for a layperson."
"Web interface could be enhanced and more user friendly."
"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."
"pfSense could improve by having a sandboxing feature that I have seen in SonicWall. However, maybe it is available I am not aware of it."
"There could be a way to remote to it through a mobile app. You can always browse through your browser on your mobile phone or tablet, but it would be good to have a dedicated app. I understand that iOS and Android developers are expensive, but there should be a mobile app."
"I believe that IAM and NGFW need to merge into a single box, instead of there being two separate box solutions."
"The firewall system needs gradual improvements because there are more threats and challenges every day."
"Sangfor could improve their interface capacity on the 5100 series model and upgrade their hardware from one gig to 10 gig. This would improve the overall throughput."
"An area for improvement would be the number of ports defined on the box. In the next release, I would like them to develop their provisioning stage of enrolling end devices."
"They need to increase the number of ports in the firewall."
"The solution has too many bugs and these slow down the implementation."
"Sangfor need greater exposer in the market because the market is mainly saturated by Fortinet. The user experience of Fortinet is quite different compared to NGAF. If we want to switch our users from Fortinet to NGAF, we have to convince them that the user experience will be much easier once once they start to use it."
"The GUI needs to be improved, lacks logic in some areas."
pfSense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 52 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 16th in Firewalls with 13 reviews. pfSense is rated 8.4, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of pfSense writes "Feature-rich, well documented, and there is good support available online". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sangfor NGAF writes "A scalable and comprehensive solution that specializes in ransomware detection". pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall and Sophos UTM, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Sophos XG, Fortinet FortiOS, Sophos UTM and OPNsense. See our Sangfor NGAF vs. 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.
