Netgate pfSense Reviews

We use the product as a perimeter firewall.

We can run it on any hardware.

The product must provide integration with other solutions.

We have been using the solution for ten years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is not very scalable. That is why we are planning to switch to a different product. The solution is used by one administrator and 75 end users in our organization.

I have used SonicWall, Sophos, FortiGate, and Cisco Meraki. The choice of product depends on the context. Netgate pfSense is suitable for small businesses and homes. It is not the best solution for large deployments or branch offices. Sophos and FortiGate would be suitable for large companies.

It is easy to install the tool. We need two weeks to deploy it. One person can deploy the solution. It is also easy to maintain. One person can maintain the solution.

It is an open-source solution.

Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I use the product to test firewalls and VPN solutions.

We could use the solution to connect with the firewalls remotely for security.

The VPN features are the most valuable. The product’s documentation is good.

The solution’s interface must be improved.

I have been using the solution for one year. I am using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the solution’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten.

The initial installation is easy.

The product is cheap.

Initially, the product was difficult. It gets easier with use. It was a good investment. I would recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We have a client who's got a number of VMs on a single piece of hardware. They needed to have access over a VPN to those VMs from inside their network. We use pfSense to provide the VPN link using the IPsec.

In others, let's say smaller organizations, we will put a Mini ITX system that then connects into their broadband - typically sort of fiber or something like that - and just gives protection. 

The solution also allows us then to manage port forwarding and things like that.

The firewall aspect of the solution is very valuable to us. We had so many limitations with the Dre tech, however, it's the firewall and the port forwarding that is the most interesting due to the fact it allows us to restrict IP addresses and move things from different ports and things like that.

I'm the expert when it comes to Linux systems, however, with the pfSense, due to the web interface, the rest of the staff can actually make changes to it as required without me worrying about whether they've opened up ports incorrectly or not. The ease of use for non-expert staff is very good. 

The solution is easy to use in general, for everyone.

The product is very powerful.

It's the type of device that does one thing well. There isn't much I would want to change.

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.

The only other thing I might look at would be some sort of antivirus type of aspect to check traffic coming in and out of the network. If they offered unified threat management, that would be an ideal outcome for us.

I have been looking at it as a sort of an appliance, rather than installing it on an actual PC. However, that's for future research first.

pfSense is only a small part of what we do. The majority of our systems are full-blown Linux systems and we use that firewall as a system. It's only recently we've started switching some clients to pfSense where we think we need to have slightly different things. Maybe they haven't got a server and this is just replacing their sort of existing TP-link or router, et cetera.

I've had no issues with stability whatsoever. I'm quite happy letting it run for days, months, weeks, et cetera. We have no requirements to actively manage it. In terms of performance, we just need to go in and make changes as required by the customer. Other than that, it's set and forget. There are no bugs and glitches to navigate. It doesn't crash or freeze.

It's not been extensively used at the moment as we've already got a Linux server in place. If we can justify it for the customer, we tend to use that. That said, we are looking to increase usage of that as it would say it takes some of the work away from me and allows me to farm that out to the staff.

We've never had to use technical support. Therefore, I can't speak to their level of knowledge or how helpful they are. We've always just been able to find the answers we need without their help, and therefore have never really had to use them.

We're still using Linux servers that are running IP tables, et cetera. Prior to that, we were using, something called IPCop. Before that, I can't remember what it was. We've always used sort of Linux old BSD-based solutions for our firewalls. That's just what we've always done.

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It is very straightforward. We connect and we just have got a couple of standard procedures to setup once it's complete. We could probably get one up and running between half an hour to an hour. The deployment is fast and the whole process is pretty seamless at this point.

We did not use any integrator or anything like that. We're offering our client's the installation process as part of our services. I find it very, very straightforward, however, that's due to my previous experience with Linux setups. 

We use the open-source version, which is free to use. 

I say we've always used the community edition as I've never felt a need for support or anything like that and our clients have never insisted on it. I know where to go to look for answers if we run into problems, so paying for that extra support isn't something we need to worry about. 

We are just end-users and customers.

I cannot speak to the exact version we are using. Ours may be slightly out of date. We may not be using the absolute latest version. Version 2.51 is available soon and we'll likely upgrade to that.

It's good for where people have outgrown their existing broadband routers, such as the TP-link, the Dre Tech, and that sort of thing. Often, it doesn't justify putting in a full system. We tend to use a Mini ITX PC, multiple LAN network cards, and then install the opensource version and configure it appropriately.

You need to be slightly more tactical than just plugging in a Dre tech or similar Nokia device. I don't think you need to be incredibly technical to set this up. 

I like it, I'd recommend it to most people to at least give it a try, and to spend a few hours initially to work their way around it.

I'll definitely give it at least a nine out of ten for its general ease of use for me and my staff. It does pretty much everything that we ask of it and the required resources for the hardware are minimal as well.

We are solution providers and this is one of the products that we deploy for our customers. We replaced old Cisco ASA with pfSense and it proves as a good choice.

PfSense gives tools to protect the network. If you configured things properly then you'll be protected to the distant level. PFsense gives a solid set of functionalities that work perfectly. VPN services are stable and easy to deploy.

The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, and VPN Are most common. This is a feature-rich product and the documentation is good.

Ease of use is a problem for a user who is unfamiliar with this product because, in the interface, everything has to be set manually. It would be more user-friendly if things were set automatically. 

The drop in performance can be drastic when you use more advanced techniques. There is some trade-off between having a certain level of security and maintaining acceptable performance.

We have more than ten years of experience with pfSense.

The stability of pfSense is standard. It is rated as one of the good solutions in this area.

This product is scalable to some point, although we have never used it for large companies. We use it for small to medium-sized organizations. For big companies, we more often implement Palo Alto.

In our company, we have a data center and some of our clients are hooked to it. This is something that we have on-premises for our customers.

We have plans to increase our usage with pfSense because we have had good feedback from our customers. In fact, with the good experience we have had, our sales have been slightly increasing. Our sales are shifting from Sophos to pfSense.

The technical support is organized well. We do most of the technical support for our customers in-house but there is a second level of outside support available. It is okay. 

Positive

We currently resell products from both pfSense, Sophos and Cisco. In some areas, pfSense is better than Sophos. I have been a bit disappointed with Sophos because I know their history, and I don't think that they have advanced as well as they should have in that time. Also, they have two different products, XG and UTM. This is another reason that I prefer pfSense, at least a little bit, over Sophos.

The initial setup is complex. If you have a straightforward setup then you will have straightforward, basic protection and nothing else.

It takes a few months to adjust where you start by setting it up, and then you have to monitor it and see what's happening. It's ongoing work because, after this, you have to keep monitoring and adjusting to the situation. This is part of the service that we perform for our customers.

We are the integrators for our customers and deploy with our in-house team. We have people in the company who are specialized in this area.

The return on investment depends on the predicted cost of failures of the system, or intrusion of the system, which is hard to give a straight answer on. In part, this is because different companies put a different value on their data.

For example, with medicine, if somebody were to steal the data related to the latest CORONA vaccine then the cost would be tremendous. On the other hand, if there is a company that is making chairs, stealing the design of the chair probably wouldn't be as high when compared to an application in medicine. So, there is not a straight answer for that.

Return on investment, in any case, I think for every company, this is a must. Put in a straightforward way, they can count just the possibilities of having an attack on their system with a cryptovirus. If they can save their data from attackers then it would save them at least two days of not working plus the cost of recovery, which would be much more than the cost of the system and maintenance.

The price of the licensing depends on the size of the deployment. pfSense is open-source, but the support is something that the customer pays for. We charge them for the first line of support and if they want, they can purchase the second line of support. Typically, they take the first-line option.

The term of licensing also depends on the contract. The firewall doesn't always have a contract but rather, there is a contract in place for the network, which includes UTM.

In addition to the licensing fees, there are costs for hardware, installation, and maintenance. We use HPE servers, and the cost depends on how large the installation is. The price of setup is approximately €500 to €800, which also includes the initial monitoring.

The maintenance cost isn't really included in the network fees.

For smaller companies, we charge them a few hours a month for monitoring. It takes longer if the client is bigger.

Palo Alto, Fortinet, Sophos, Cisco

It is important to remember that you can't just leave the device to do everything. You still have to know what you're doing.

I recommend the product. It's well-balanced and one with a long history, so it doesn't have child's diseases. There is a lot of online support available online, which they can consult themselves. But, in the case that they need support, they can hire a professional support line and that is highly recommended.

I say this because usually, people look at the UTM as something that should be put in the system, set up, and left alone. But, this is not the case with this type of solution. Therefore, I strongly suggest making an outside agreement with a specialized company that will take care of their security from that point on.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this kind of product is that you can't assume that the internet is a big place and nobody will find you. There is always a good possibility that robots will search your system for holes, and they are probably doing so this instant. This means that users should be aware and have decent protection.

In summary, this is a good product but there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I am using pfSense as a firewall and VPN gateway.

pfSense has helped our organization because we use a data center that needed a firewall, VPN, and other features under a budget. 

The most valuable features of pfSense are security, user-friendliness, and helpful online management.

It was difficult to configure our web printer through the solution. This process could be easier. Additionally, integration with SD-WAN solution.

I have been using pfSense for approximately one year.

I rate the stability of pfSense an eight out of ten.

We have approximately 2,000 people using the solution.

I rate the scalability of pfSense an eight out of ten.

I have not used the support from the vendor. However, I use community support.

The initial setup of pfSense was simple. However, when we install filters or agents it can be difficult.

I rate the initial setup of pfSense an eight out of ten.

I am using the community version of the solution which is free.

The paid version is priced reasonably.

The solution has solved many of our use cases.

I rate pfSense an eight out of ten.

I primarily install and test the solution. I'm not an expert in the solution; I mainly put them in place.

The pricing is good.

I have a good understanding of the underlying firewall which I find to be easy to use and comprehend. Some of the terminologies were more familiar to me than they were when I first encountered Cisco.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

The solution has been stable. 

From what I can tell, the solution can scale. 

I can't speak to if there are missing features. I'm not that familiar with it. 

The critical issue there for us was the lack of FIPs compliance, however, I don't know if that's something that they would consider adjusting for.

The product is stable. There are no issues with bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

While it's my understanding that scaling wouldn't be a problem, I myself have never actually tried to do so. Therefore, I can't speak from personal experience. 

I've never dealt with technical support before. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are in terms of answering support-related queries. 

I also have an understanding Cisco, which is a bit harder to understand. This product is more straightforward. 

In terms of the initial setup, pfSense seems pretty easy. I'd say it's been a few years since we played with it and I don't really remember too much about it other than using it and thinking it was okay. It's just not listed as FIPS compliant for where we're at now in government, which is an issue. 

The solution doesn't come at a high cost. That makes it a very attractive option.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. I've been pretty satisfied with the product overall.

We are a customer and an end-user. We don't have any business relationship with the solution.

The product makes our business more secure. It has increased the security of our business. We are using the two solutions. The first one is from Cisco, and the second is from pfSense.

A few months back, we were attacked, however, the attackers used the wrong software. We decided then it was important to start prioritizing our security, which is why we brought on this product. 

The solution is very flexible.

I find the product very easy to use. 

The initial setup is not complex. 

The solution has been very stable so far.

We can scale the solution if we need to.

The process can be challenging. We do not have one security team. We need a team that can guarantee the security of our company and we're not there yet. We only have the client's equipment, and one guy managing this equipment. This isn't necessarily a problem with the product, it's more about our own internal structure. 

Ultimately, we'd like something stronger, and something that can handle threats better in real-time. 

I've been using the solution for about five years now. 

The stability has been great so far. there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. Its performance has been great.

The scalability of the product is very good. If we want to expand, we can do so. 

We have 3,000 people on the solution right now. There are people from various teams that utilize it. It's not just IT. 

We previously used OpenBSD, a Linux solution. 

We switched to this product as it is free and open-source. It also increased the level of security we had on hand, even though OpenBSD was more user-friendly. 

When it comes to setting up the solution, it's not a complex process. It's pretty straightforward in general. 

The deployment took maybe a month and a half. 

We have two teams that handle deployment and maintenance tasks. One team is internal and the other is external. They're mostly engineers and they work together. 

We used an outside integrator to help us and we were pretty happy with the results. 

We are using the free version of the solution. We are not paying anything for it at this time. 

We're reading up on other solutions every day. We likely won't stay with this solution. It's good for now, however, we'd like something more robust further down the line. 

We are a customer and an end-user. 

We're using either version 5.3 or 5.4 at this time. 

While this is a good solution, we're looking for something stronger in the future. I'd recommend others also look for something strong, that fits their security needs. 

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten. 

We had been hit by crypto, and with our existing firewall infrastructure, we found out it didn't have geofiltering without an additional cost. That's still written from SonicWall and I think you have to pay extra for that. pfSense came with geofiltering and with logging as well, which I believe you have to pay extra for with SonicWall. So we didn't realize this until we got hit. We implemented GoIP filtering, and we also activated and stored the log files from within the firewall. I think there are some other feature sets that we used as well. The device seemed to be a little bit simpler to manage and configure through the interface. Of course with it being open source, we were able to stay current with that without having to incur annual purchasing or annual licensing fees like we do with SonicWall.

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 open source. 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. 

In terms of areas of improvement, the interface seemed like it had a lot. The GUI interface that I had gotten into was rather elaborate. I don't know if they could zero in on some markets and potentially for small, medium businesses specifically, give them a stripped-down version of the GUI for pfSense.

I've used this solution for about a year. 

You could scale the pfSense platform to multiple users and bandwidth. With SonicWall, you have to go get a different version of their product because they're going to tie their firmware to their version. pfSense doesn't do that. It seemed to me like the scale of pfSense is easier and it was a non-sales interactive requirement to scale the offering versus with SonicWall.

Technical support was through an online chat. I don't remember us running into any snags. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward if you have your ducks in a row if you understand the IP engineering and design, and you understand some of the protocols that you want to introduce into the environment. I think one of the biggest things that it allowed us to do also was remote desktop or remote access. We filtered out remote management. We shut those ports down within pfSense, and that seemed pretty straightforward. I think the GUI has a little too much information out there, but if you're a senior engineer, you're going to love all the information because it makes sense to you. If you're a junior or a freshman engineer, you're not going to mind it either because you can use it to teach yourself how to take advantage of that information that's there. 

On the front end of this, I thought it was rather intuitive.

With a firewall, typically we only charge between $25 and $75 a year to manage the firewall. That allows us to keep our price points low, and with minimal administrative overhead, we can maximize our profits.

When compared to other solutions like SonicWall, SonicWall has a built-in administrative burden where you have to go back and make sure your client understands they're going to get hit with another annual fee to keep that device up to date. pfSense is not like that. pfSense is not like that in the sense that if you go out and get the latest update of firmware or software, you're going to get the latest and greatest. You don't have to remember to go to the client and remind them they're going to be charged another fee next year to keep their license current. I hope they keep that model.

If you're a junior or even a beginner engineer, jumping into the interface for pfSense could be overwhelming. There are going to be things in there you just have never heard or seen before, which isn't a bad thing.

On the front end, I would take advantage of any courses that are out there, any introductions to it. It's very intuitive and there are a lot of forums out there that you can go watch and educate yourself on. If you are not that advanced of a network engineer, I think it's a great solution for you because you can go out to some peers and get a lot of direction and guidance from them to set it up in a small environment. The only other thing I would do is just compare. You always have to understand what your customers' needs are. Make sure you understand what your customer's needs are and that it's going to fit into their environment and their budget. I don't know why it wouldn't, but that'd be about the only advice I'd give is just make sure that it is definitely a fit for your customer base. I'm fairly confident, small and medium businesses should be a very good fit. I've been in the enterprise space as well. There may be some things on the enterprise level that you just can't do with pfSense and you might want to go to some other solution set, but I think it's very competitive.

I'd rate this solution a nine, even if I was an experienced engineer because it's easy to have and easy to maintain.