Netgate pfSense Reviews

We are a large church, and we use Netgate as the main firewall appliance. We have multiple WAN connections coming in, and we have about 500 endpoints connected to our network, so we use it to make all the bits travel where they need to be.

We were using some other products that were closed-source, and they did not have some of the features that I liked. I liked OpenVPN. In terms of the VPN infrastructure, I had a lot of great information from people online. I could follow a lot of reviews and very good technical documents. It was about unchaining myself from a different licensing program that was charging me almost an extortionary rate for a firewall appliance but did not give me any better security than I would get through pfSense.

I like the idea of packages because I work on Linux all the time. Adding packages is a nice way of adding features. We do iPerf3 testing. With just a few clicks, I can have an iPerf3 server set up on my pfSense. All the tooling has been easy to integrate.

Everybody loved it when I switched over to the VPN. It was easy to use. OpenVPN has a great piece of software. Everybody loves how easy it is to use the VPN to get onto our network but also how secure it is. 

The fact that I do not hear much about it is one of the best parts. The Internet has not been 100% solid here, but we never get to know it because the WAN failover takes us from one endpoint to another without even noticing it. I had the Internet provider come, and he was going to change some hardware. He was asked if we needed to tell anybody. We did not because they would not even know that we were doing it. That is a pretty good feature that it works so flawlessly. If you are going to take your main connection to the Internet down, you have two backups, and nobody is going to know the difference.

I can look at my network as a whole. It is great to see the traffic on my network. I can see where it is coming from and where it is going, and I am able to follow through. The screens are helpful for telling the story of what is going on at the moment with the data. I look at my firewall quite often. If there are any questions, that is one of the first places I go to for troubleshooting.

pfSense Plus and the service program have definitely helped minimize downtime. The fact that I have help on the way anytime I need it is great. I do not have an estimate about the reduction in the downtime because as soon as I got here, I swapped over. I do not have any previous data points on that.

Running their hardware and software helps a lot with the performance.

The customer support is very good. Setting up the VPN is pretty straightforward and easy. 

We have multiple VLANs, and with assistance, it was easy to get everything set up and running in our organization the way we needed it to. We have the flexibility and the ability to adapt things over time as needed. When I needed to add an extra WAN connection, I could. It was not locked behind a paywall. I did not have the issue of not having enough ports on the machine for that. I had all the ability and all the hardware I needed to do all the things that I needed.

When we were setting up VLANs, there was some information about the way the ports, switching, and other things were done inside. Their UI could have hidden some of the complexity better so that it was easy to understand or more general. They could have given some more clarification on the markings on the outside of the machine. There were some questions as to what port was what and how that links to what was being asked in the software. Those things were not always very clear.

The features that I wanted have been added, but I have not taken the time to look at them. I am a big fan of WireGuard, and they have added that, but I have not taken the time to install it yet. Its features are complete for our needs. If I have to ask for anything, it would probably be more education on bolting on some of the XDR platform stuff that is out there, but it is feature-complete. I know that all this exists. It is just taking the time to get educated on it, which is probably on my side.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for about three years.

I have not seen any downtime, so I have to give them a ten out of ten on that. There has not been a time when it has not done what it needs to do.

There is a long way to go above me, but I would not be looking to change if we grew by a lot. I would rate it an eight out of ten for scalability, but I do not know what it would be like in a data center.

It is being used at a single location. We are a fairly large church that has quite a bit of data flowing in and out, but we have just a single location. It is me who works with it, and I have a junior sysadmin and our managed service provider working with it. Three of us interface with it.

They are amazing. They are great. They followed through very well when I had issues. Usually, the issues I had were kind of self-inflicted wounds, and they walked right through everything with me with great continuity. I cannot say enough good about them. I would rate them a nine out of ten.

We used Sophos. One of the main reasons for the switch was the license model. The way they charge for their software was pretty expensive. I did not feel that we got a lot for those IT dollars. I knew that I could set up pfSense and pay for the service plan so that I have a live person on the other end to help me when I needed it and it would still be way under what we were paying for Sophos.

It is deployed on-prem. We have a couple of Netgate appliances. We have one that is a spare and we have one running in production. In case one goes down, we will just move over to the other. We have a couple of pieces of equipment in our rack locally.

My managed service provider helped me with the deployment. In one night, it was done. It was pretty painless.

In terms of maintenance, there are always updates to do.

There were three of us involved, and it took about four and a half hours to get everything configured. From taking out the old to getting the new in and getting it configured took about four and a half hours.

Compared to what we were doing with Sophos, it provides a great value financially and in terms of time savings. For the most part, I do not have to mess with it. It does not require me to go in and touch it unless I have something I want to change, and that is a win. The upgrades are easy, and they have been flawless. That is a good return on investment. That dollar is well spent.

We are probably paying about 30% of what we were paying previously.

The price is fair. I buy the Netgate hardware so that I can support pfSense and Netgate and I have somebody designing the next layer of software for me in the future. I like their model. It is a high-value piece of equipment with a great team behind it.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities, we get a good value.

I would recommend it because it is a good value in terms of the price, performance, scalability, and usability of the metrics that it gives. It is definitely what I would go with.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten. It would be a ten if they offered free training and told me about what the free training is. There are probably a few things out there like that, but more one-on-one free training would be the main thing they can do better.

It's a straight-up front edge router used in various scenarios for front-ending multiple websites and multiple web applications for various marketing scenarios which require certain back-end firewalling that you would need to utilize. We found that it works much better than others. It's not like the Ciscos, which, at the time, were incredibly expensive and difficult to work with unless you had a CCNA who was programming it for you.

I was looking for routers that were capable of doing multiple firewalling, which it does. We wanted it for setting up demilitarized zones and setting up some failover for WAN for the internet. We looked at that, and we played around a little bit with Untangle. pfSense was just far easier to get configured and working, and there were no hidden costs or fees involved, which made it very nice to use.

They have a whole section of package management that you can add stuff to. We use pfSense to do a little bit more than what we would or what I would normally do today in a medium to large enterprise.

The flexibility of pfSense is fantastic. You can use it in a number of situations. I have it running on my home Netgate. At the same time, I can just put it on a slightly larger machine and run a massive, highly trafficked web environment. It will run anywhere.

It's easy to add features to pfSense and configure them assuming about web networking and routing and traffic through an edge router scenario. For a home user, it's probably a lot more than they would get through, but they wouldn't need to since you can just install it, and it just works right out of the box. Just about everything is easy. It's extremely well documented, and the amount of help that's available is fantastic.

I saw the benefits of pfSense immediately. When you need your router to do something more than, for example, a store-bought router for home, you immediately see it since now I can do things. I can set up multiple LANs. I can create a firewall between the LANs. I can open up a full demilitarized zone or just port forward into specific LANs and have the LANs porting between themselves in various ways. You don't get that stuff in your normal consumer-grade solution. You have to spend a lot of money to get a serious data center router - and on top of that, you need to get somebody to program that from the command line, which is very expensive. In contrast, pfSense has a graphical user interface, which makes it all very straightforward and easy to use to set up some pretty sophisticated routing scenarios.

I don't use pfSense to prevent data loss as I have backups, both on-site and off-site backups. It's effective for preventing data breaches.

pfSense gives users a single pane of glass as a type of management. There is everything in one instance. It has a graphical user interface. It'll come up with a dashboard that you can customize to put whatever you need to see up on there. I can customize the dashboard to show me the most important things to me. It's incredibly intuitive.

Managing multiple devices is easy enough. You just log in remotely to the device, and it's all connected through the IP. It's really quite simple.

There are two versions of pfSense: the community edition, which is free, and the plus version, which is paid. I'm using the paid one presently.

The solution minimizes downtime. Once it's configured, it works. I don't have to worry about it. I fully know it backwards and forwards since I've been using it for 15 years now and it pretty much just works. I have certain instances of pfSense that haven't even been rebooted in years since it's up and running and it keeps running, and it runs well. I rarely need to touch certain my installs after they've been set and configured.

The solution provides visibility that enables data-driven decisions. It has logging. It has intrusion detection systems, which will give you a whole lot of data that you can make decisions on. For example: Who do I need to block? Is somebody trying to attack me? It'll allow me to collect all that information to make critical decisions regarding exposing certain resources to the internet.

pfSense helps optimize performance in combination with the hardware that it's running on. That will determine what kind of performance you're going to be getting out of the box. It's a very lightweight software package. Depending on the hardware, you can hit it with lots of traffic, and it won't even hiccup.

I would like to see more active updates coming out of the developers. I like the FreeBSD. That said, the developers in FreeBSD are less productive than what you see out of the Linux community, where there are millions and millions of developers. Being FreeBSD-bound, it seems they're short of developers who have to specialize in that operating system.

I've used the solution since 2009.

The solution never crashes and never lags. It works. You fire it up, and it will work for the next 50 years. As long as the hardware is working, pfSense will just go on and do its thing.

Scalability all comes down to hardware. When you put pfSense on more robust hardware, it performs pretty well. 

For the paid version, if I have an issue, I need to open a ticket. Before I had my business going, I used the community, and it worked it worked just as well. I haven't had a need to call support. However, I pay for pfSense Plus support in case something happens that's over my head that I need to speak to an expert about.

I contacted them when I had a question about a Snort setup, which is for intrusion detection and prevention. It turns out you have to contact their specialist, and that Snort requires you to pay extra for that help. It's a third-party plugin for pfSense. However, in relation to pfSense, issues, I have not needed help. 

I've used Untangle and Cisco routers, and I've tried OPNsense.

I prefer pfSense. I'm comfortable with it. It's rock solid. I've never had an issue with it. I tell it to do something, and it does exactly what I tell it to do.

I have purchased NetGate appliances for customers. For my business, I have hardware that I've repurposed for pfSense.

The initial deployment, either way, is very easy. It would probably be easier than most commercial routers that people buy.

A simple instance where you're just using a firewall router with one LAN can take less than five minutes. You just install the software. It picks up the WAN IP and gives you a LAN IP, and it's up and working as quickly as the software will install, which is usually less than five minutes on most devices and most hardware.

I do the deployments myself. I don't see where a team would be required for this. It's just a firewall router. If you need a complicated setup, it might take one person, a couple of days of planning, and then implementation. That said, I don't see where you would need a team to do that unless you're installing a bunch of other network hardware at the same time, multiple switches, or a ten-gig, one-gig type of scenario. However, that's not a pfSense issue.

In terms of maintenance, generally, there is none. It will update itself. I see very few critical security updates. Most of them are our feature updates. I have certain installs that have been running without rebooting for five years, and it just installed them. Mostly, I'm leaving it alone.

The pricing is reasonable for what it is. I usually put it on my own hardware. The licensing for me is relatively inexpensive for what I'm getting out of it.

The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is fantastic. You can use the community edition and get expertise from the manufacturer. It's quite reasonable. It's quite a good setup.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'd advise potential new users to install it, plug it in, get to know it, log into it, and you'll start to see how easy and robust it is. The more you use it, the more you learn, and you'll like it as much as I do.

We currently use pfSense firewalls at our branch offices and central server locations. I have implemented TAC enterprise support on three of these firewalls, with the installation of the third scheduled for this weekend. Our network infrastructure relies on VPN tunnels between sites, and I have successfully deployed an always-on OpenVPN solution that significantly outperforms our previous SonicWall VPN system.

Installing packages on pfSense is straightforward, although the quality of package documentation varies. While I understand this isn't Netgate's responsibility, the installation and configuration process for these packages is remarkably user-friendly, relying almost entirely on the GUI. In my experience, I've rarely needed to resort to the command line, but I'm certainly not averse to it when necessary.

I immediately recognized the advantages of pfSense. Its ability to support custom hardware installations allows me to tailor solutions to the specific needs of each branch location. While I've had excellent results with Netgate's pre-built hardware, the option to construct higher-specification systems myself, all while maintaining support, is incredibly valuable. The difference compared to our outdated SonicWall is night and day. I previously built a pfSense firewall on a Dell server for a business handling high traffic volumes, and its performance was exceptional.

pfSense helps me prevent data loss by utilizing firewall aliases and other DNS-based filtration methods to block access to shadow IT and third-party cloud data transfer sites, providing some control over data movement.

While pfSense doesn't offer a centralized overview of multiple firewalls, it provides extensive customization options for each firewall's homepage. This allows for detailed monitoring of VPN tunnels, interfaces, and other components. I appreciate the ability to add, remove, and customize widgets on the homepage for tailored information display.

Helps minimize downtime. I have set up the high availability with one location, which works flawlessly.

Provides visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions about network capacity, including throughput and the ability to handle traffic.

pfSense has significantly improved our performance by optimizing our always-on VPN. The recent release of the OpenVPN data channel offload feature, which was quickly adopted and supported by Netgate pfSense, has revolutionized our Windows laptop VPN solution. This new feature is nearly ten times faster than the previous OpenVPN without data channel offload, and its thorough documentation encouraged us to implement our always-on VPN ahead of schedule.

pfSense's greatest strength lies in its customizable package installation, detailed logging capabilities, and ability to manage log history, including sending it to Vault Logs via Syslog. OpenVPN support is exceptional. When I inquired about setting up an always-on VPN, the engineer swiftly and fully understood my needs and provided expert guidance. Netgate support's in-depth knowledge of included features is truly impressive.

I would like clear guidance on supported network interface cards, including detailed performance metrics for various models. While I understand the focus on selling appliances, more comprehensive documentation for those building their own systems would be beneficial. Specific throughput numbers and other statistics for Intel, Broadcom, Mellanox, and other cards are needed. Additionally, reinstating the ability to visualize long-term RRD data through built-in graphs would be valuable, as the current live traffic display offers limited insights.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years.

I have not experienced any crashes in the production systems. The only crashes I've encountered have been while running unstable development builds, which is expected. However, excluding power outages, pfSense itself has been one hundred percent reliable in my experience.

If you invest in hardware capable of handling increased bandwidth, performance remains unaffected. We haven't observed any spikes in CPU utilization or memory usage. Even with a jump from a 50 megabit to a 500 megabit internet connection and approximately 65 active VPN clients, our firewall operates smoothly without any strain. Our small businesses handle the load effortlessly.

I have exceptionally high praise for the Netgate technical support team. In the three or four times I've called support, I've always reached an engineer within 20 minutes, which was the longest wait time. Every time, they've quickly addressed the issue once verifying firewall support. Their knowledge and willingness to assist are impressive.

Positive

I have experience with FortiGate, Dell, SonicWall, Cisco, and numerous consumer-level firewalls. While I am not the most seasoned network engineer, I have worked in the field for a considerable time, encountering a variety of solutions. Among these, pfSense stands out as exceptionally customizable and intuitive. Given the inherent complexity of networking, pfSense has made the subject as accessible as possible.

Deploying a pfSense box is straightforward when I'm physically present. Remotely guiding someone unfamiliar with operating system deployment presents more challenges. However, on-site deployment is remarkably easy, even simpler than installing a Linux server. 

Deploying a Netgate pfSense appliance is straightforward, even for network engineers without experience with the platform. The setup wizard is intuitive, requiring minimal networking knowledge. Subsequently, the configuration interface is user-friendly, allowing those with moderate networking experience to navigate and manage settings efficiently. Building a custom solution would depend on hardware expertise and operating system deployment skills, but utilizing Netgate appliances is notably easier.

The Netgate appliance I recently purchased took less than an hour to install, with most of that time spent gathering necessary information from the internet provider.

pfSense pricing is reasonable. Whether purchasing appliances or support, I hope they're charging enough to sustain their exceptional support services. Whether you opt for a bundled appliance and support or standalone support for a custom-built device, the pricing remains impressively fair.

When considering the total cost of ownership, pfSense is a compelling choice for a solution that incorporates firewall, VPN, and router functionality. Initially, I explored purchasing the OpenVPN access server, which would have required a virtual machine due to the lack of a dedicated physical server. However, integrating the VPN endpoint into the firewall aligns better with our design goals. It eliminates the need for a separate VPN appliance, resulting in significant cost savings and improved performance. Testing pfSense with OpenVPN in a virtual environment confirmed that it operates more efficiently on bare metal hardware. Moreover, the licensing cost for the OpenVPN access server would have been comparable to the support fees for pfSense.

The TAC enterprise support is $800 a year per firewall.

I would rate Netgate pfSense ten out of ten. If I could choose a product that was among the least frustrating and nearly flawless I've used, pfSense would likely be at the top of my list.

In addition to initial configuration tasks like routing and applying patches, minimal maintenance is required. Once the interfaces are set up, we configure firewall rules and are ready to go. Patching will be necessary for all platforms, but no specific requirements exist beyond standard practices.

I use pfSense as my primary home router and edge gateway. My professional background is primarily in security engineering, though I focus more on pre-sales technical engineering. Due to my extensive experience in direct and security information management over the past decade, I leverage pfSense's capabilities to generate much of the data in my SIM system. This data is essential for laboratory purposes, testing, rule development, and use case creation. As a result, pfSense is a crucial component in securing both my home network and laboratory environment.

I appreciate pfSense's flexibility because I previously encountered issues with hardware reliability. While I'll eventually order dedicated pfSense hardware, I experienced consistent problems with SSD corruption. Frustrated with this, I considered switching to OpenSense. However, I discovered its potential after running pfSense in a virtual environment. The ability to easily create snapshots and recover from mistakes is invaluable. Ultimately, I've decided to continue using pfSense virtually due to its flexibility and convenience.

The ease of adding features and configuring them in pfSense depends on a user's familiarity with FreeBSD and network analytics. While I have extensive experience building firewalls from raw FreeBSD, pfSense offers a user-friendly interface that accelerates setup for newcomers. Its underlying FreeBSD foundation allows advanced users to access and configure low-level features. I appreciate pfSense's intuitive GUI and the secure default configuration provided during initial installation.

After the initial setup process, I immediately recognized the value of pfSense. The straightforward configuration questions provided a solid foundation, making the benefits apparent. While every implementation requires tailored adjustments, pfSense offers a versatile platform to explore various use cases. My primary focus was extracting in-depth information beyond standard firewall logs, such as detailed Suricata events and DNS server activity. As I delved deeper, I discovered pre-built packages that simplified data export to tools like Prometheus and InfluxDB, often meeting most of my requirements without extensive customization.

The advanced pfSense firewall rules offer significant advantages, such as implementing threat intelligence to block malicious actors from accessing our network. Configuring pfSense for radius or two-factor authentication can enhance security by preventing unauthorized access to our environment. These features are among the reasons I appreciate pfSense.

pfSense offers a centralized view of network data, but its built-in dashboards are sufficient for many users. As a fan of Grafana, I prefer a consolidated approach and could utilize pfSense data through either Prometheus or InfluxDB. However, extracting all data for central aggregation, as I'm accustomed to in threat management, aligns more with my preferred workflow. Nevertheless, the ability to customize dashboards within pfSense to monitor firewalls, DNS, and other critical services is valuable and meets the needs of many users, including those focused on point-of-service operations.

pfSense offers several features designed to minimize downtime, including failover, synchronization between routers, and ZFS snapshotting. While these tools effectively reduce downtime, I believe virtualization snapshotting and backups provide the best solution for my needs. Ideally, I would have multiple pfSense routers with a redundant setup, but budget constraints currently limit me to virtualization. Ultimately, the best approach depends on individual requirements and resources.

pfSense provides visibility that enables me to make data-driven decisions.

pfSense's visibility into system performance enables optimization at various levels. The initial user interface provides valuable information about RAM usage, active services, and general health. In contrast, more advanced users can access in-depth kernel-level data for granular insights into system behavior. By offering tools for novice and experienced users, pfSense empowers practical understanding and management of system resource allocation.

I appreciate pfSense's foundation on FreeBSD, which enables me to leverage additional FreeBSD packages for expanded functionality. WireGuard, a core feature I constantly rely on, facilitates my home and mobile devices' constant connection to my home network, allowing complete traffic monitoring and filtering. I value Pia ad-block's effectiveness in network traffic filtering, ad blocking, and malware prevention. Unbound's flexible DNS server complements the robust firewall, which is user-friendly and flexible for rule creation.

I've encountered persistent issues with the solid-state drives built into pfSense hardware devices. The devices consistently malfunctioned despite repeated attempts to resolve the problem, including complete reinstallation. Power outages significantly contributed to the issue, as frequent system corruption occurred following these events. Even after reformatting, bad sectors persisted on several drives across at least three purchased devices. Unfortunately, this has rendered some units utterly unusable due to recurring disk corruption.

While there seems to be support for virtual environments, I believe some modules specifically support VirtualBox. Unfortunately, I've had to customize my own setup again. To accommodate users on platforms like Proxmox, I need to install the QEMU Guest package to provide native support for such environments, similar to other open-source virtualization solutions like KVM. Out-of-the-box QEMU Guest support would be beneficial. I appreciate the inclusion of Suricata, Snort, WireGuard, and Telegraph, which work well behind the scenes. The Prometheus node exporter is also present. Having used pfSense for a decade, I continually discover new functionalities. Surprisingly, some features I needed were already available, but better discovery mechanisms within the product could help users explore them. I would like to see out-of-the-box QEMU support.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years.

Stability has been a concern for me. Hardware-wise, performance has been inconsistent. Software stability has also been an issue, particularly during significant upgrades. I've encountered various problems that required troubleshooting. However, I've noticed a substantial improvement in stability and ease of use for upgrades and patching over the past year or two. While there have been occasional setbacks, such as with the new packet exporter feature, pfSense has become much more reliable overall.

The scalability is good because I started with a simple network, WAN, and LAN setup and expanded it to multiple LANs, VPNs, and internal networks.

Technical support has been good, especially for hardware issues. Whenever my image was corrupted, I could always count on them to send a new NISO image within a few days without questions. However, I don't need much support for configurations or other technical aspects as I prefer to experiment and learn by trial and error in my lab environment. That's the fun part for me.

Positive

I was going to move to OpenShift, but I never made the jump. Eventually, I think my saving grace was my ability to virtualize pfSense. Once I do that, I can bounce back from misconfigurations or something wrong. I have had no problems with pfSense since I got off the harness.

A skilled networking engineer unfamiliar with pfSense can easily configure a firewall. Setting up a NAT barrier between internal and external networks is straightforward; this functionality is included by default. VLAN configuration and other initial setup questions are addressed during the product's initial setup process, the specifics of which depend on the intended use case.

The average time to set up one pfSense box is 15 to 20 minutes.

One person is enough to deploy pfSense. 

I prefer the software licensing model. In contrast, hardware costs can be substantial; I once paid around $400 for a piece of equipment, perhaps two or three years ago. I believe they've made improvements since then, although I can't recall the exact model number, as I moved from the smaller SG 1100 to the SG 2100 to accommodate more advanced features requiring additional RAM. Unfortunately, I encountered another hardware failure with the latter.

The cost of ownership is low, especially when purchasing the pfSense Plus and virtualizing it.

I would rate Netgate pfSense eight out of ten.

I use the paid version of pfSense because I constantly was replacing faulty hardware. The previous physical appliances struggled to handle the network load, so I switched to a virtualized solution.

pfSense can be essentially set and forgotten in basic configurations, but utilizing advanced features like Suricata IDS and TF blocking necessitates regular maintenance to ensure rule updates and system synchronization. Consistent care and attention are required for optimal performance in these scenarios.

I recommend that new users keep things simple with pfSense. While I enjoy pushing my products to their limits, simplicity contributes to a more stable system overall.

We primarily use the solution as a replacement for commercial firewalls. We use it as an Internet Gateway Firewall product and use the VPN features.

pfSense helped solve the limitations of proprietary software. I find it frustrating when the hardware capabilities of a particular piece of equipment are doled out piecemeal for a fee. For example, when certain features are locked until you pay for them. The proprietary nature and the extra computing power that's used to basically enforce the copyright on some of the competitive products I resent. I like that this has a community option. I'm an open-source advocate. I started using Linux in 1999, and I prefer that developer model.

There are many capabilities within pfSense, that I've never used, and that's true of a lot of products. It's very flexible, and they have plug-ins.  You can add features to pfSense. It is moderately difficult. That said, the web interface is great.

I like that I can use it with OpenVPN. It's not licensed and is not run by some corporation that watches you.

It has an advanced file system so that you can configure it with multiple drives and have redundancy within the router itself. I've never used it as a file server. I've never used it as a data store. It's really more about security and not reliability.

It's keeping the bad guys out and allowing connectivity when you need it.

The configuration could be a little more intuitive. It's a little trickier to set up - things like the OpenVPN - than it should be. However, once you get this configured, it seems solid as a rock, and it just works. 

The solution needs better error messages in the VPN. It's kind of a bear to configure. That could be streamlined or smoothed out. That said, I do not do this 40 hours a week like some people. I wear a lot of different hats. Still, when it comes to configuring, it always seems to be a little more involved. 

I've been using the solution for three or four years. 

The solution has been very solid.The BSD file system is a little more fragile than a Linux file system. I've had situations where a power failure causes a hard drive not to get corrupted but to need to run maintenance on it when it reboots. However, that's not a pfSense issue. Overall, it's been great.

I'm not a power user. For me, the capabilities are fine. It runs pretty fast even on modest hardware. 

Technical support was good. It was way better than the twenty-four hours that the contract said. They usually get back to me in a matter of a few minutes. 

They are very good at answering and solving specific problems. If something doesn't work, you can give them access. They can figure it out and make it work. 

I was less satisfied when I tried to ask a question like, "Is this the best way to have this configured?" It's a slippery slope of going beyond the typical tech support and actually getting consulting on it. I understand that maybe that's not their problem. However, it did seem like there's this hard wall where they will answer specific questions, but they are not going to give you general consulting advice about how to use the product. That is a little frustrating. 

Positive

I've used SonicWall and I've used various commercial firewalls, for example, Cisco. However, I haven't evaluated other things in the same category based on open source. There are a lot of them; I haven't looked at anything else, to be honest.

It's easy to get it going as a firewall. It's moderately difficult to get the VPN features running. I was able to deploy it within a couple of days. 

Maintenance is needed for upgrades or renewal of certificates.

I managed the setup myself with the help of the pfSense support staff. 

I use the community version, although there is a paid version as well. I've also downloaded it, registered myself, and paid for it to get support. I'm not sure of the exact features that differ between free and paid. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The only shortcomings are somewhat obscure configuration issues. However, the scope of what they're trying to do is very good. While there could be more polish on some configurations, it's very capable and very flexible. 

If I had to do it over again, I would probably have actually gotten the hardware from NetGate. You're paying for the support, and bundling the hardware and support together might be better. I sense that you'd kick yourself up a notch in terms of the priority that they give you. Not that there's ever been a problem. Getting the hardware directly from pfSense might cut out the middleman and reduce the possibility of issues when something goes south. Other than that, I'm a pretty fairly satisfied customer.

I am using pfSense for its firewall, gateway, and intrusion detection. I used the Community Edition for years and then switched to the pfSense Plus free-from-home edition. There was a bit of turmoil when IXSystems announced that they would no longer offer the free-from-home edition

We immediately realized the power when we deployed it a few years ago. It exceeded our expectations. As time went on, I discovered more features in the different packages they provide and whether they fit my needs. Over time, it's been a learning process, and I've been greatly impressed with almost every aspect of this product. It has all the things I wanted but found lacking in other products.

All of the features work together to prevent data loss or any compromise of your data. It all boils down to the rule set. I have mine configured so that all the data goes out depending on my Netgate device. Some machines go through a particular VPN connection. If that connection goes down, I've got the rule set configured like a dead man's switch. It's cut off from the outside world, and I get an alarm, and it allows no more attempts to let traffic pass through that connection.

It helps to prevent downtime. Whenever there is an issue, it's the first place I look because I can check the statuses of various interfaces to check whether they're up and then zoom further out to see if it's something in my internet provider, like a faulty cable. It enables me to reduce downtime by quickly determining where the problem might be.

PfSense provides the visibility I need to make data-driven decisions. For example, if I have a spike in bandwidth usage, it shows me which devices on my network are suddenly eating more bandwidth. I can see what's causing that. It also greatly reduces the time spent maintaining my network, so there's a productivity boost.

PfSense has a learning curve, but once you've mastered that, it isn't that difficult. It's very flexible, and you can do almost anything necessary to secure a home network. It has packages that expand its capabilities. For example, you can install Snort if you want intrusion detection. If that's unimportant to you, you can use it to check the bandwidth of all the machines in your network.

Adding features is simple. You go into the menu to check which ones are available and click on the ones you want to install. If you've done your research on the packages you want and the settings you'd like to use, it's a matter of walking through the configuration in the menu. When removing the package, it will revert the settings 99 percent of the time. 

I like the interface. You can arrange the windows to see the important information and put them in the order you want. You can see the various interfaces you have at a glance in a single pane of glass. I have certain bits of information I want to see first, and there are secondary or tertiary pieces of information. If you are using VPN connections, you can see their statuses. You can see hacking attempts, which are logged. 

It's powerful. You can get quite granular in setting up a highly topical application of pfSense, but if you want just basic protection, you can do that easily. It depends on your needs and how brave you are. You can go deep into the system and do some cool things with it or set up the bare protection you would get from any firewall.

I'm trying to set up a gaming server for multiplayer games like 7 Days to Die. I spent three or four days trying to publish a private IP address through pfSense to the outside world. Some commercial and consumer-grade routers can do this, specifically gaming routers, but pfSense is not intended for this usage. 

That's a feature I'd like to see added, where you can go into a submenu, turn it on, and specify which machine or IP address you want to publish. It's not a must-have, but it would be nice to have. I spent a long time trying to figure that out. Ultimately, I was successful, but it was not intuitive.  

I have used pfSense since 2016.

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. You must have a license for pfSense Plus, and I called them about an unexpected hardware issue that caused me to switch machines. I emailed explaining the situation and got a response the same day. I provided all the information on the new box, and they gave me a license. It was a pleasant, non-stressful experience. 

I have used Smoothwall and a few other things that have been abandoned. I liked the look and performance of Smoothwall's interface. It had many of the same features as pfSense, but its capabilities weren't deep enough. I've also used basic Linux distros set up as firewalls, but pfSense is oriented toward an enterprise-level deployment, and I find myself between hobby and enterprise. I also like the added features pfSense provides. 

I am not using a Netgate appliance. I deployed pfSense on a very small machine that has plenty of RAM for the overhead, logs, and speeds I want for my network. 

When I first installed pfSense, there was a bit of a learning curve. I had to sit down with the documentation and figure out what to do. It wasn't difficult— just time-consuming. That information has carried forward with me. Other people look at me like I'm some kind of expert but I'm really a few pages ahead of them in the manual. 

PfSense isn't something you can turn on and forget about. You need to configure the solution and test it. Then you can turn it on and let it run. From time to time, you have to come back periodically to make sure everything is still fine. The initial deployment takes about 30 minutes. It was a one-person job.

I would like to see the price of pfSense lowered by about $50, or maybe they could create a category for home lab users like me with one device. I'm not running a business or profiting from it. I realize that people need to get paid for the work that they do, so I can't complain. They decided that they needed to change their model after providing the product for free for many years. 

Before they changed and started to charge for pfSense, the total cost of ownership was phenomenal. It still offers tremendous value, but that was an adjustment. You can choose to go back to the community edition or just pony up the money.

I rate Netgate pfSense nine out of 10. I only give it a nine due to that recent issue setting up the game server. I eventually figured it out and published my solution to the forums. Otherwise, it would be a perfect 10. 

I have Netgate 4100 and pfSense Plus.

My career is in IT, and Netgate is part of my home network, which does hot failover between two ISPs because I work from home a lot and do not want to be disconnected. It handles all my home security, manages remote access to my systems when I am abroad, and hosts some services such as health checks from Route 53, WireGuard, etc.

I was able to see its benefits immediately. One issue it helped me solve was that I was hitting bandwidth caps from one ISP and did not understand why. It turned out that the ISP was counting all return traffic from outsiders probing my home network. They would find my Linux device and see that there was an open SSH port, and they would hammer at it. This generated an enormous amount of traffic. Installing pfSense allowed me to detect it accurately and shut down this traffic.

It is hard to say if pfSense helped prevent data loss in any way, but unauthorized access to my network and the data I have on my network from the outside is not feasible now.

I can do all the things I want to do from the device. I do not have to set up services on other hosts. I do not have to have any other UI in place. I can just go to pfSense and do all the things I need. The slight caveat to that is that I am not operating AWS or GCP from pfSense. I have set up my health check from Route 53. I have set a couple of very simple things in AWS, but I do the rest of the things from pfSense. It is pretty close to a single pane of glass.

I use pfSense Plus and found pfSense Plus to be more robust than the Community Edition. Any network device needs occasional prophylactic reboots. The frequency of issues, such as the tables being all dirty or memory being scrambled, has significantly reduced with pfSense Plus. The hardware has considerably improved. Because I was running Community Edition on an older Netgate, it is difficult to understand where I am getting the improvement from, but pfSense Plus has certainly been a lot more robust. I have fewer instances where one of the interfaces just stopped working. That used to happen with Community Edition fairly regularly. I have not had that trouble at all here. Upgrades have been a lot smoother. They are down to just a reboot, whereas, with Community Edition, I had to regularly wipe the device, reinstall the operating system on pfSense, and load in my configuration from backup, which I was able to do and usually worked. I spend a lot less time in system maintenance using pfSense Plus than with Community Edition.

Its out-of-the-box performance meets my needs. When I wonder whether my network is a little sluggish, I am able to go in and find out things, such as one of my ISPs being dropped out of my load balancing config because of too many latent pings. It has been very useful and easy to do those sorts of things.

It is very flexible. I have not found a use case that I could not satisfy with the device. There are more use cases I am not currently using. For instance, I do not have an HA setup. I use it for my internal home DNS and DHCP services and to split the VLANs so that I have Internet of Things and guest VLANs. I trust the device's VLAN. It helps me deny traffic from large areas of the world that do not need to interact with my firewall.

With such solutions, there is always a learning curve, but with enough foundation, I have never found that curve very hard to climb. Whenever I have tackled a new thing, a little bit of searching on the web and playing with the UI has always gotten me where I wanted to be.

It is best practice to remove all installed packages before you do an upgrade because most upgrade failures have to do with having installed packages. These are additional packages that supply functionality above and beyond what comes in the base operating system. We have to remove them one at a time. I would prefer being able to click a button that says," I am upgrading, so uninstall everything and store in the configuration file what I had installed." It already keeps the configuration of all the packages installed. Even if I do not install them again, the configuration for those packages is still there after the upgrade. It would be very nice to have a one-click feature. There can be a check flag on the upgrade screen to remove packages first and then another check flag to reinstall them after the upgrade. This would be extremely handy, particularly when I have a lot of packages. It takes me about 15 to 20 minutes to uninstall and reinstall them all after the upgrade.

A couple of weeks ago, I would have had another area for improvement, even though it was outside their purview. They are switching DHCP providers from ISV to something, but it did not have a feature I wanted, which was client hostname registration for statically served IP addresses. I rely on this for host management inside my trusted network, but that feature has been released now, so I feel more comfortable moving to the new DHCP version they support.

I have used the solution for at least seven years.

Since operating Netgate 4100 and pfSense Plus, anytime I wondered if the device itself was laggy, it was not the device. It was something upstream causing the issue. I have an HA configuration and a load balancer, so if one of the links goes down, the device gets a little laggy as it drops that interface and brings up the other one as the primary. If the ISP is flapping, this will happen continuously, introducing a lot of network lag, but that is trivial now that I understand what is happening. As soon as I start feeling lag, I check the logs to see if that is the cause. The device itself has not ever been latent or lagging. It has been rock solid.

I found it very scalable. I am out of ports on my device because of having multiple ISPs and VLANs. I do not have an HA setup, so the device scaled very well for my needs personally. When we deployed an HA pair in a professional situation, we had a much larger network, and it scaled to cover that easily.

I have only contacted them to get a download of the operating system image ahead of any upgrade attempt just in case I needed to start from scratch.

Neutral

I have used a number of different solutions. I have used firewall software and hardware of all kinds, both professionally and personally, reaching back to the early 2000s.

The initial deployment was done many years ago. I remember it being pretty straightforward back then. One of the things I enjoyed about the device is that the configuration file is like the starter batter where someone gives you a lump of yeast and dough pinched from someone else's. 

I have been able to roll my configuration file forward every time I switched devices or operating systems. This has made it a lot easier to maintain the device. Even when I had to completely wipe the machine and start over, it was pretty trivial in almost all cases. It has certainly been a lot easier since I started using pfSense Plus to get my configuration back up and running again.

When I ran an IT shop a few years ago, we had an off-the-shelf solution where years ago, somebody had built a firewall solution using a couple of rack-mount PCs and some open-source security package. It was a black box. Nobody around understood it anymore, and I needed to replace it. I went to look for hardware that my shop wanted to use, like Cisco, but the price was well out of our budget, so we went with a pair of HA Netgate devices and pfSense. That solved our problem. I thought it was a good price point for a good solution.

Their pricing is quite reasonable. It is very good. Every firewall is a router, but typically, in an enterprise situation, these are separate. My home is essentially a small office. My partner and I work from home a lot, and I am the system administrator, network administrator, and security administrator. The values are high because I am not maintaining two machines. I am not spending my own power on two different devices. For small office or home use, such as mine, pfSense is valuable because it combines multiple functions into one low-power device.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten. 

We use the solution as the main firewall and a proxy for load balancing our web servers.

The best feature of the tool is its all-in-one capabilities. It is a firewall with built-in IDS and IPS, load balancing, and VPN connections. The VPN integration, particularly with internal AD environments, provides stable connections. Centralized authentication is a notable benefit as well. We primarily use it for these features on our server level and are planning to expand their use in our complex environment to connect employees and services. 

Netgate pfSense is cost-effective because you can start using it for free. You can research how to install and configure everything, then install it virtually on any device or partition some hardware. This allows you to start using a firewall without any initial cost.

For larger companies, if you have one or two people skilled with the tool, they can design the complete network using it. That's all you need. You don't have to invest in expensive subscriptions or big hardware setups.

My only suggestion is that Netgate pfSense implement more graphical monitoring. While there are accounts with add-ons for graphical monitoring of data networking, IPS, IDS, and firewall-level events, having more graphical representations like blocks would make the tool more capable. Although it has commercial support and a good GUI, it can still be challenging for someone without firewalls, command lines, and networking knowledge.

Adding features to the solution through packages is somewhat limited. The marketplace doesn't have as many options as you might expect.

One example is the IPS/IDS system. Netgate pfSense still uses Snort 2.9, even though version 3.0 has been out for about a year. Version 3.0 offers important improvements like multi-core support, significantly speeding up processing. The solution seems slow to update to newer versions of these third-party packages.

The tool should provide beta versions with the latest package updates sooner so users can benefit from new features and improvements.

Another issue is the lack of a package marketplace. Despite being open source and customized by many developers globally, there isn't a wide selection of community-created packages. The reasons for this aren't clear to me - it could be security concerns or other factors.

Based on my experience using Netgate pfSense for about four years, I can't say the improvements in our environment are solely due to the product. It's a combination of Netgate pfSense and another monitoring tool we use.

Monitoring is crucial. The easier the monitoring and user interface, the simpler our team can work on and investigate issues. Accessing data becomes more difficult when you use commands or other complex methods.

With our third-party tools, log viewing is very straightforward. The tool logs everything important. This was helpful when our site was slow, and we needed to determine why. The logs from Negate pfSense and our IT systems help us identify issues.

However, the solution's combination with a third-party monitoring tool provides a graphical interface. This makes it much easier to review logs and pinpoint problems.

If Netgate pfSense had a better graphical interface, it would be one of the best products available. I think the graphical interface should be much better and easier to monitor. For example, I encountered errors when I installed HAProxy, a load balancer available in the solution. It was difficult to determine the errors because the backend wasn't working properly. It took us a long time to identify the exact issue because more detailed error information isn't directly available in the current interface. You must go through different steps to trace and see what errors are coming up.

If the tool could improve in this area and provide more error details directly in the interface, that would be beneficial. As for packages, if they could update to newer versions of third-party packages more quickly, that would be helpful. I understand they might not be able to use the very latest versions immediately, but if they could provide updates within three to six months of a new package release, users could try new features sooner.

One additional feature that would be helpful is SAML authentication. Many companies now use Azure or AWS; in our case, we use Office 365 for email and authentication. If SAML authentication was available in pfSense, we could have integrated it with Office 365, allowing users to log in directly using their existing credentials.

The tool can integrate with Azure AD internally, but SAML or two-factor authentication, such as SMS, would provide better security. Firewalls are usually kept behind the scenes and not exposed, but this feature would be useful in some cases.

We've offered Netgate pfSense to many clients, managing it for them and migrating them from existing firewalls. They're generally happy with the change. However, some clients were looking for these additional authentication features. While we can integrate with Office 365, a direct connection option would be beneficial.

I have been working with the product for four years. 

I use Netgate pfSense Plus. We mainly chose it for early updates and commercial support, as advertised on their site. I've only used the support once, though. We started with the free version, which worked fine without issues. After three to four months, we upgraded to the Netgate pfSense Plus environment. Since then, it's been very stable. We've never had problems that required rolling back changes after updates. The updates are very stable - we don't have issues when we update the firewall. So overall, it's been quite stable for us.

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

My company has five users using the solution in two locations. The solution's documentation shows that it is scalable. 

There is a lot of support material available on the Internet. You need to do some research. In my experience, I've only had to contact Netgate pfSense support once in the last four years, and that was because I messed up the operating system in our virtualized environment. 

We were previously using Cisco ASA 5500. After three years, we needed to upgrade the hardware and the subscription. At that time, we were moving from an on-premise solution to the cloud, so we decided to try Netgate pfSense. Our vendor recommended it. We wanted to get at least six months of experience with it to ensure its features were stable and it could handle higher loads without breaking. That was one of the main reasons we chose the solution.

The solution's deployment is straightforward. The basic setup took us just about two to three hours. However, designing our custom network configuration took a bit longer. Overall, we got the tool up and running in about three to four days in my environment. There were three people involved in the deployment process: myself and two other team members.

Netgate pfSense doesn't require much maintenance on our end. It's pretty smooth. We monitor alerts. When there's a new update, we test it in our staging environment to see if it affects anything. If it's smooth, we upgrade.

The tool has helped us save money. 

The tool is flexible; even the free, open-source version offers many features. From a cost perspective, even the subscription model for commercial support isn't too costly. However, it's important to have someone knowledgeable about Netgate pfSense to take advantage of it. While there are online resources, a professional or someone experienced can get much more out of the solution. I've heard that the IPS/IDS licenses and other features can be costly.

The solution is very cheap. It's so affordable that even students can use it on their laptops. It's a good, cost-effective product.

The solution has a single web interface, which you could consider a container. Within this container, there are multiple interfaces or sections. You must navigate to different settings to manage different aspects of the system.

So, while it's all contained within one web interface, you can't see or manage everything from a single screen.

I recommend the tool to our clients. We help them implement and support it. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We have been building local firewall systems since 2008. 

The main use cases for Netgate pfSense are its exceptional stability and reputation as a premier network operating system worldwide. Millions of people are using it, and we have rolled out a new hotspot system that works from the cloud. The service is running under the pfSense portal.

Netgate pfSense impacts our organization positively because it's open source and has a free edition, which helps us significantly in building our own systems for our customers. It helps in building a new firewall system for the Turkish market. It helps us substantially.

Netgate pfSense's best features are that it's open source and flexible. We have implemented IPsec VPNs, site-to-site VPNs, and client-to-site VPNs. 

We appreciate the flexibility of the Netgate pfSense solution, but we have waited approximately two years for new updates to the Community Edition. We are now moving to OPNsense.

I appreciate Netgate pfSense because we have been using it for approximately 18 years, which is a considerable amount of time. We are waiting for pfSense to integrate AdGuard, Pi-hole, or Zenarmor directly into the pfSense kernel. When I install packages, such as Snort or OpenVPN client export tool, I need to install AdGuard or Zenarmor because it's very challenging to ban TikTok, YouTube, or social media for our customers. In the early days, we managed this using SquidGuard, but since the blacklist has changed, we are struggling. There are many other blacklists I have tried, but I couldn't make them work. It has to be much easier for engineers to implement this. It's easy to integrate AdGuard into OPNsense; it becomes a function under the firewall. You can easily switch blacklists on and off, and create custom blacklists to block all social media with a toggle. We would appreciate such facilities in pfSense as otherwise, we have to manually enter all the websites, DNS resolver, and DNS overrides. Writing numerous rules on the LAN side during installation takes considerable time.

We have been using Netgate pfSense since 2008.

Netgate pfSense is a stable solution for me.

It's a scalable solution. Two months ago, I purchased a brand new server edition, a Lenovo ThinkSystem server with 128 GB RAM. I installed this pfSense server in a data center, and it's working fine. Many people connect via VPN; three or four sites are connecting site-to-site, and we also established another IPsec connection to one of the biggest ISPs in Turkey. It's working great now.

We have never asked for technical support from Netgate. We rely on the resources on the web for information.

Neutral

Two months ago, we switched to OPNsense, and we are now studying OPNsense. We made a strong decision to switch to OPNsense because of the large solutions. There are many facilities, such as AdGuard and Zenarmor, which can be easily installed under OPNsense. We are studying OPNsense, and we will likely switch to OPNsense in 2025 because we are still waiting for a stable version of pfSense. 2.7.2 is very old, and we have switched to the 2.8 beta version, but we are still making our tests now.

Since we have been using pfSense for almost 18 years, we have learned extensively about Netgate pfSense. We have worked extensively and watched many educational videos from the United States, and we have made ourselves ready for pfSense. If one understands the system, it's easy to handle, but without knowledge, it's very challenging for everybody. Many people try to work with pfSense in Turkey with the free edition, the Community Edition, but they couldn't succeed because it's a complex system. It's a vast ocean, and understanding every protocol is necessary. Basically, all firewall systems are the same. Brands such as Cisco, FortiGate, and Sophos sell well in Turkey, and we are competing with these companies. Our target market is the small market, not the big companies or holdings, especially in the hospitality sector, where we deal with hotels and motels.

We would appreciate seeing facilities similar to OPNsense for Community Edition. In Turkey, people generally don't want to pay for yearly subscriptions to firewall systems. We barely recouped our investment for our Safe Hotspot system in Turkey. Competing with other brands such as Sophos, FortiGate, and Cisco is challenging. These brands also require annual payments, and due to Turkey's economic conditions, everyone is eliminating such costs. We have produced our hardware for pfSense, but it was not Netgate; it was only pfSense in the early days. We made our own rack mount 5 or 8 port firewall systems in Turkey and sold many.

The initial setup of Netgate pfSense is not complex; it's very easy. I can even have one of our resellers burn a pfSense USB stick and install pfSense without knowing anything about it. 

Because the Community edition is free, we only charge for our services to the customers. In Turkey, we cannot demand normal pricing; if we were in Europe or the United States, we might collect more money from customers. The conditions in Turkey are very challenging, and collecting payment is difficult. We often charge half or one-third of the price compared to Europe.

We would like to buy Netgate hardware, but when I checked its price in Europe, it seemed expensive.

I would rate Netgate pfSense a 10 out of 10.

I typically use it as an edge firewall.

pfSense is easy to configure. The features I have configured are firewall rules and dynamic routing through FRR. These advanced features are straightforward to configure, and the documentation, if needed, makes things even easier. 

We are using pfSense Plus. It helps us minimize downtime. There is high availability built into the software. I can deploy two pfSense firewalls, configure them correctly, and they can back up each other in case one of them fails. It is a fantastic free feature integrated into the product, and I utilize it constantly.

pfSense has been somewhat beneficial in helping to prevent data loss. We were able to see its benefits immediately after the deployment.

I find the overall amount of configuration flexibility to be valuable. 

It is fairly maintenance-free. That is one of the strengths of the product. It has no frills and is extremely easy and painless to use. It does not cause any trouble.

Another strength of pfSense is that the documentation is very digestible and easy to understand.

One of the features I know they are working on and would like to see improved is the single pane of glass. They have a beta feature available right now that is good, but I would like to see that more developed and made available to customers sooner rather than later. It is currently very basic. When dealing with a fleet of pfSense firewalls, considering them individually is not the most efficient use of time. 

It does not provide visibility to make data-driven decisions. I cannot derive any analytics or information from the pfSense GUI or software to make data-driven decisions. The visibility that pfSense Plus provides does not help us optimize performance. I want more information and context around the data passing through my firewall to make data-driven decisions. I have used other vendor firewalls that provide some capability to show the traffic or bandwidth passed within the last hour, directly within the firewall software. I need a way to generate a report that I can deliver to my C-suite, allowing us to discuss and determine the best path forward. Currently, you deploy it, and it performs as expected, but there are no analytics or reporting capabilities to extract information from the firewall, generate a report, and engage stakeholders in discussions about network connectivity issues, concerns, or upgrades.

I have used Netgate pfSense for more than five years.

I would rate the stability of the product a nine out of ten.

When assessing scalability, I would probably give it a seven out of ten.

I have interacted with their customer service, and they have been, without a shadow of a doubt, beyond helpful. They are fantastic and truly among the best I have worked with. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have used Palo Alto Firewalls and Cisco ASAs as my primary solutions. If money was no object, Palo Alto Firewalls get the edge only due to the fact that they provide more visibility and analytics in regard to the data that goes through the firewall.

Setting it up is extremely easy. Installing the hardware, configuring the software, and getting it ready to forward and pass traffic takes as little as 45 minutes. It is extremely robust and easy to manage and use.

In my case, it definitely involves a team. When we visit on-site, one person can deploy it, but at least in my business, it is accomplished as a team.

pfSense is excellent for a low total cost of ownership. pfSense pricing is extremely competitive, and it delivers exactly what is advertised. If you are looking for a firewall with advanced feature sets at a very low cost, you cannot get anything better than pfSense. It does exactly as advertised, and that is one of its biggest strengths.

It is extremely affordable in relation to TCO. You get everything that other commercial products give but at an extremely affordable rate, so you can deploy en masse to numerous customers and clients.

My overall advice would be to read the fantastic documentation. Everything you will ever need to do with the product is explained very easily in the documentation. If you have any troubles, just read it, and you will always find an answer. It is one of the best documentation of a product I have used in a very long time. Nothing is hidden.

Overall, I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.