Netgate pfSense Reviews

We use the solution for blocking websites, banking, and malware.

I have found the most valuable features to be antivirus and malware protection.

I have been using the solution for approximately four months.

This solution is good for small businesses but it is not as stable as other competitors such as Fortinet.

We currently have approximately 45 people using the solution.

The support is good when comparing to other solutions.

We have used FortiGate in the past and they tend to be more stable, but lacking in other areas.

The installation was not too complicated. We did have some issues with the port forwarding,  some of the server application were not getting through the firewall but we managed to get it to work.

The whole network deployment took approximately three days.

We are using the open-source version which is free. We are testing the solution to see if we are going to go to the enterprise version which requires a license and is not free.

For those who want to implement this solution I would advise it is great for a small enterprise, it is best to get started without having any harm getting to their networks.

I rate pfSense an eight out of ten.

I was working for a firm that has 70 employees. They are mostly working from home, so I needed a very well-structured VPN for remote working. We put it on Supermicro, and it worked fine, and it was above their needs.

I like the connectivity to the open VPN. It's very smooth. All the encryption in the open VPN is very good. The structure of the pfSense software works out very well. The PF work cuts and the snorts and whatever we put on the console for spyware and attack prevention seem to work very nicely. 

They can improve the dynamic of the input of IPs from outside. Determining the IPs that are outside would be another way to identifying potential threats. We can treat it or identify and then block it or determine the rules to work with that IPs from the outside and inside the network. 

I have been using pfSense for the past three years. 

Back in the day, I was using Fortinet, and it was very tricky to get it working without spending more money. pfSense is exactly what we paid for, and it's still working very well. We've been working with it for two or three years, and it's a very good solution, and I didn't have to spend any more money on it.

Cisco VSL and Fortinet are tricky when it comes to improving the firewall rules or creating rules above older rules. In pfSense, it's very logical. It's simple.

The initial setup is very linear and very smooth.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give pfSense a nine.

We primarily use pfSense as a firewall. It's a DHCP server.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the way it can browse packages on the internet.

The initial setup is very easy.

We've found the stability to be very good overall.

The product can scale if you need it to.

The access control aspect of the product could be improved. There should be more control over everything that the user is doing. It should be able to log and report on everything users are doing. 

The product no longer complies with new rules in Brazil. Therefore, we need to move off the solution.

I have about five years of experience with the solution. It's been a while since we started using it at our organization.

The stability of the product is very good. We haven't had any issues. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

We've found the solution to have good scalability. If a company needs to expand, it can do so. That shouldn't be a problem.

We have about 10,000 people using the solution. There is a network manager and about ten people that work directly with the solution.

We won't be increasing usage, however. The Brazilian government recently changed some laws and this product is no longer in compliance. That is one of the reasons we are looking at Palo Alto. We are likely moving away from this solution.

While the websites and forums are excellent, we don't have any dealings directly with technical support. Therefore, we can't speak to how they are in terms of their responsiveness or knowledgability. 

A long time ago, the company did use a different solution. They switched to pfSense. However, now they are moving away from it as well. 

We're also using Palo Alto, however, right now, it's just in the demo phase. The solution seems to be better at centralization, which is a big selling point. We have three school campuses and we'd like to configure a solution from one central location that would work for all three campuses. With Palo Alto, it looks like we can achieve this.

On top of that, with Palo Alto, there are more user control products. You can log everything that you are doing on the internet with it.

The initial setup of the solution is very easy. It's straightforward. There isn't any complexity. A company shouldn't have any troubles with the setup.

We are using a free version of the solution. We don't need to pay any licensing fees.

We are just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I would recommend the solution to small companies. If you are a small company, you can use pfSense without any issues due to the fact that it's a free solution.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

We are a solution provider and deploy this product for our customers. We also use it in our organization. We use both Cisco and pfSense but for our customers we mainly use Sophos and pfSense. I'm the CEO of our company. 

The solution has assisted us by preventing unwanted access. If the solution is configured properly, then you'll be protected to some degree, although you may also need other products. 

Content protection, content inspection, and the application level firewall are all good features. 

There's always room for improvement. In general terms, for someone who is not familiar with the product I think ease of use could be improved. When you're connecting, the interface is very difficult for an inexperienced user in the sense of setting everything up, as it all has to be set manually. I've also found that the more features you use influences performance and the drop can be drastic when you use advanced features. I want to achieve a certain level of security and at the same time maintain good performance.

The solution is feature rich enough, but one of the things usually outside the UTM system or gateway system is SIEM. It's an advanced system for managing the possibilities and it would be nice to have a kind of interface in the UTM, to enable connectivity with most SIEM systems.

pfSense is rated as one of the good solutions in it's field and stability is good. 

The solution is scalable to a degree but we never use it for big companies. We use it for mid-range companies. Our company has a data center and we have companies that are hooked to our data center. We're doing this on-premise for our customers so if the customer has an on-prem information system, we will implement the firewall and UTM at their location. We have plans to increase use because we have good feedback for the product and we have good experience with it. So we are increasing use of pfSense. Actually we are moving away from Sophos and more towards pfSense.

Technical support is well organized. Most of it is in-house, but in the case there's also a we have access to a second level if necessary. 

We were one of the first companies here making UTMs (before they were known as UTMs). We were the first partner of Cobalt, the first appliance creator. When Cobalt was bought from Sun, we made our first network defender line. It was the first appliance that had a firewall, content inspection, constant protection, intrusion prevention, intrusion detection, antivirus, and mail and web server in one box. Our line was mainly distributed all over the Middle East, Asia, and some parts of Europe. We expanded and worked with companies such as Palo Alto, Cisco, Sophos and pfSense. In some areas pfSense is better than Sophos which didn't make the advances they should have. They now have XG, so they have two totally different products in the same area which is one of the reasons I prefer pfSense.

If you carry out a straightforward setup, then you will have straightforward, basic protection, nothing else. It's more complex if you want other things included. We usually start with some research, carry out a basic setup and make the initial monitoring. From there we make additions based on the results of the complete monitoring. Then it's ongoing monitoring all the time and setting or adjusting to the situation.

For any compnay, ROI can be seen even if they look at the basic possibility of a crypto virus or the like. The savings on that would be at least two days of lost work and the cost would be more than the cost of the whole system plus maintenance. 

Licensing costs depend on company size. pfSense is an open source solution, so there's a charge for support. We offer a first line of support and a second line if required. Payment depends on the contract, because usually it's only covers the firewall. We offer a contract for the network which includes UTM. There's a hardware cost for HP servers and, again, depending on the size of the company, installation cost is about 500-800 Euro. There's an annual maintenance fee included in the networking agreement. 

I recommend this product, it's well-balanced, has a longer history than other solutions so it's not lacking in maturity. There is a lot of online support available via YouTube or blogs but professional support is available if required. I highly recommend taking the support because usually people look at the UTM as something which should be set up in the system and left, but that's not the case with these devices. I strongly suggest making an external agreement with a specialized company to deal with security. Users need to have decent protection, not just protection.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

It is my main firewall into the data center and VPNs for clients. It sets up my DMZ and does a whole bunch of other stuff. I am using the latest version.

We wouldn't be able to function without it.

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. 

Their support could be better in terms of the response time.

It has been pretty rock solid.

Its scalability is good. I have got web users and other kinds of users, so there can be five or thousands of users.

I paid for some support with them, and it was pretty good. They just could be a little quicker in responding. They have custom level support, so if you got something complicated, they get you up to the upper tiers, but it takes a little bit longer to do that. Once you get there, the support is good. I would rate them an eight out of ten.

I used Fortinet previously, and I used Ubiquiti prior to that. We switched partly because of the cost. It also gave me the ability to do the clustering. I can still maintain my VPNs, connections, and other things. I can take down one of the firewalls for maintenance and bring up the other one and not take down my whole user base.

It was not complex. I was able to do it myself, but we had some problems with some of the protocols, and we had to get one of their coders to get in and look at it. Because of that, it was a little complicated to do the high availability stuff.

I did it myself.

I spent a couple of $1,000 on hardware, and the OS was free. A comparable firewall would cost me probably 20 grand. It saved a lot of money.

I would advise others to go for it. I would recommend this solution. It is a good solution. No other solution can beat the price. 

There is so much stuff you can do with it. There are so many features, and I have not even scratched the surface on all of them. If it is something that someone doesn't feel like configuring, you can buy a prebuilt system from them and get support.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten because of the cost and flexibility. It has been pretty good.

We just use the solution as a straight-up firewall. There is no VPN access or anything like that. We just use it as a straight-up firewall and we run Suricata on it as a defense.

The built-in open VPN and the VPN Client Export are the solution's most valuable aspects.

I cannot recall any features that are lacking.

There's a bit of a learning curve during the initial implementation.

You do have to pay extra for better customer service.

We've been using the solution for about six months. It hasn't been too long.

The solution is very stable. We've had zero issues. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been reliable.

I have not tried scaling, therefore, I can't really comment on how easy or hard it would be to expand the service.

There's only one person in the organization using the solution, and that's me.

The tech support is excellent if you have a support subscription. If you didn't have that, you could be lining up for a while. It could be a hit or miss, whether you get someone that's actually going to help you. 

However, we have a subscription and therefore our support is always excellent. We're quite satisfied with the level of service we're getting.

Previously, we used Dell SonicWall. There was just a high cost of licensing all the time, and, with having someone go in and troubleshoot for issues as well, it just wasn't cost-effective anymore. pfSense is simply a better solution.

The initial setup has a bit of a learning curve. It's not complex per se. It just takes some getting used to. After the initial deployment, the other six or seven were easy. I could just copy the configuration of the other ones, change some IP addresses, and I was basically done.

There aren't monthly or yearly licensing costs.

We're just cusomers. We don't have a business relationship with pfSense.

We're using the latest stable version of the solution.

I would 100% recommend the solution to others. On a scale from one to ten, I'd give it a ten.

Our main business is for WiFi networks. Customers also ask us for simple firewalls, and we use pfSense to add a firewall to provide the complete solution. We are working with the latest version of pfSense.

One of the advantages of pfSense is that it is very easy to work with. It is a very good open-source solution, and it works really well.

pfSense provides a complete package. For some features, it could be the first solution in the world. It is a very good alternative in the market for a firewall solution. You don't need to go to Cisco or other brands with expensive firewalls. pfSense also allows us to offer some support services.

There is more demand for UTMs than a simple firewall. pfSense should support real-time features for handling the latest viruses and threats. It should support real-time checks and real-time status of threats. Some other vendors, such as Fortinet, already offer this type of capability. Such capability will be good for bringing pfSense at the same level as other solutions. 

I have been using pfSense for about four or five months.

It is stable.

It is easily scalable. It is more of a hardware thing than a software thing.

It is easy to deploy. Our real deployments are for WiFi networks, and then we add one or two firewalls to protect the network. For a small network, it can take one week. For a more complex network, it could be two or three months. We have a few upcoming projects which would require severe thousand firewalls, and it would take us more than a year.

It is open source.

I would recommend pfSense, but it depends on the requirements. There could be other vendors who offer more services than pfSense. For example, Fortinet is a very good brand, and it offers services in a different way. Fortinet also offers more services, but it is very expensive. If you don't need some specific services, pfSense is an excellent solution.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

Typically, we implement this solution on an enterprise-level for our clients and set it up for them as required.

The solution offers good value.

The captive portal on the product is excellent.

The solution has a very nice load balancer.

It's a good solution for end-users. It's pretty easy to work with. 

The user interface is very nice. It's easy to navigate around the solution.

Technical support is very helpful.

The solution could use better reporting. They need to offer more of it in general. Right now, the graphics aren't the best. If you need to provide a report to a manager, for example, it doesn't look great. They need to make it easier to understand and give users the ability to customize them.

I've been working with the solution for enterprise-level organizations for four or five years at this point.

Our clients use the solution across 100-200 computers. Some of the implementations are sizeable.

I've dealt with technical support in the past and have found them to be helpful and responsive. we have been satisfied so far with the level of support provided. They are easy to work with.

We implement the solution for our clients, so we have a good sense of what is expected.

As an implementer, our company can handle the initial setup for our clients.

We implement the solution for our clients. I've personally implemented the solution on five projects so far.

We work with the latest version of the solution, typically.

Our companies are typically mid-level enterprises. 

This product is the very best. Overall, I would give it a rating of ten out of ten.

We have internet limitations here in Sudan. The financial institutions that I am working with do not have a lot of services on the internet.

It is difficult but at the same time, we are safer and are not faced with any kind of compromised data.

This solution is suitable for small businesses and charity organizations. Security is not just about the firewall, you need policies and procedures in place.

The developers of pfSense follow the principles of open-source.

They keep it simple. It's simple and good.

The problem with open-source is that no one can take responsibility.

It needs to be more secure. Security needs improvement.

It's always better to have an agreement, an SLA regarding security. You should outsource your security to another company.

I have been using pfSense in my home environment since 2010. I have a small lab, a small environment.

We have also deployed it in my workplace.

It's a stable solution.

pfSense is scalable.

At our peak time, we have reached more than 5,000 concurrent connections.

I do not have experience with technical support.

I am also using IPFire. It's also open-source.

It's very stable, and it meets my business needs.

The initial setup is straightforward.

If you have solid knowledge and experience in IP tables, then it will be easy for you to deal with this product or any firewall. For example, Palo Alto or Fortinet. It's the same concept.

Depending on your activities, it can take a long time to deploy if you are new to this solution. For me, it takes less than one hour.

You have to understand the network technology and you have to understand what you are going to protect, and what service are you looking to protect. If you address these questions correctly, the installation is just a matter of a couple of clicks.

I completed the implementation myself.

We are using the open-source version, not the commercial one. 

It's very affordable.

I would continue to use pfSense if the decision was mine, but it is out of my area. It depends on the CIO.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

pfSense will not cost you any money.

It depends on your business needs. You have to address your business needs correctly.

I would say to go with pfSense. If you feel that it is not compatible, you have other purchase options such as Palo Alto.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

I use the product for many enterprise clients, including building construction, government, and education.

The documentation is very good.

The pricing is okay. It's not too expensive.

The integration capabilities are great. The product can integrate well with Check Point and Fortinet. They make it a very easy process.

It's very good at defending our company.

It would be ideal if the solution could integrate with Snort and OpenVPN.

The technical support needs to be improved.

I've been using the solution for ten years at this point.

The technical support is not great. It's very slow. Sometimes it will take four days in order to connect with them, which is actually a decent timeframe for them. 

Their documentation, however, is pretty good.

The initial setup is not complex. It's pretty straightforward. The onboarding process is pretty good. They make everything very, very easy. People shouldn't have any issues with implementation.

We've found the pricing to be very fair. It's actually pretty low. The licensing is very inexpensive.

We looked at Fortinet and CheckPoint in relation to how they work with Linux.

In the case of Fortinet, the content filter is a URL content filter. It's very different and it's complex to use.

We're a pfSense partner.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. It's been very good to work with.

I would recommend the solution. pfSense is superior in terms of defending against attacks.