Netgate pfSense Reviews

The typical use case for Netgate pfSense is VPN connectivity, content blocking, and IDS/IPS. Users typically implement it for these specific purposes.

The best features of Netgate pfSense include its open-source nature, and one of the most appealing aspects is the absence of recurring expenses, as there are no licensing fees. Users get enterprise-class firewall networking with this product.

Customers who use other firewall products such as Sophos or FortiGate often conduct research and choose Netgate pfSense because the yearly expenses of other firewall products are higher compared to pfSense, which has no licensing fee. While there is no yearly licensing fee with this product, users still receive all the enterprise-class firewall features.

The stateful packet inspection feature is enterprise-class, and when compared to other firewall products, it matches their capabilities effectively.

Areas of Netgate pfSense that can be improved include the customers' requests for antivirus protection, which they refer to as Unified Threat Management, available in other products. Unified Threat Management can match up with other brands as well.

I have around one and a half years of experience working with Netgate pfSense.

Netgate pfSense is definitely a scalable solution.

The technical support from Netgate pfSense deserves a rating of 10 on a scale of one to ten, where one is the worst technical support and ten is the best.

The initial setup of Netgate pfSense is easy because it has a wizard. Users can run the wizard and set up the firewall within five minutes.

Netgate pfSense comes with Netgate appliances, in which pfSense is loaded, ensuring compatibility with different hardware platforms. The solution proves to be stable in operation.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution an 8.

We use pfSense as an edge router for customers. I use pfSense Plus. We're using Netgate boxes preconfigured with pfSense.

PfSense gives our customers high security, and it's easy to implement. Most customers are looking for a VPN, so we set up a static IP that makes the VPN easy. The benefits of pfSense are immediate. It has a few features that prevent data loss, such as backups and creating rules. It does packet inspection to ensure large known malware does not get through to the end users.

It offers features that help us prevent downtime, but that doesn't apply to our customers. It has failover, so if an internet line were to go bad, you could failover to another line. That doesn't apply to our customers because they can't afford a second internet line. 

I appreciate the depth of what you can do with pfSense and the simplicity of the initial setup. One thing we've done is create an image, and when we get a new customer who needs a device, we can put that image on there. The image gets them up to 90 percent of what we need them to have, and we only have to customize the remaining 10 percent. PfSense is incredibly flexible. It's complicated, but it's incredibly flexible.

We do a lot of managed services and are currently trying to get people off of L2TP VPN. Apparently, we can download a mobile config file from a configured NetGate device, and we're primarily Apple. We've experimented with it on a device that's not a production device, and we can't seem to get the phase one IPSec set correctly so that the Apple config will accept it. 

We've tried looking at the documentation but haven't found anything. While it's not the highest priority, it is rather frustrating. We'd like to do this, and the feature is right there, but we can't get it configured. We certainly don't want to try it on a production machine because it will break the current VPN. 

I would like to download the Apple mobile config so that I can tell it to configure my VPN connection to do that. We have some cross-platform things. So there's also a Windows VPN. You can download a script or a PowerShell, put it on a Windows machine, and it can connect to the VPN. It would be nice if I could say I want Mac only, Windows only, or both. I wish it could configure the IPSec phase one and phase two, or at least give me solid instructions on how to configure that.

It doesn't supply out-of-the-box visibility to drive decisions. You get 75 log lines, so if you're trying to troubleshoot something, you have to look at one log and then another. It integrates with SysLog systems, but our customers are not at the level where they want to pay for some third-party SysLog system. Usually, we can get things taken care of fairly quickly.

I would like to have the ability to control all my devices from one place. With Ubiquiti, you can get a controller that allows you to control all of your Wi-Fi devices, switches, and routers. From one area, you can switch to that customer and see what's happening in their environment. That's not part of pfSense. I understand why it's not because pfSense is open source and community supported. That's something that someone in the community needs to pick up and run with. It's not something the pfSense can easily implement. If they could, that'd be great.

We did have one issue with sales. Contacted them with a question and never received a response.

I have used pfSense for 12 years.

I give it an eight out of 10. I've never had any lag or downtime.

The higher-end boxes have a lot of scalability. You can run pfSense on a Unix box and add cards or all sorts of things. If you had a powerful Unix box and hot spot-able, there would be a lot of scalability to it. I primarily use their Netgate appliances from the 1100 to 2100 hundred, so the scalability is limited. 

The old 3100 had a lot more scalability than its replacement the 2100. But the next step up now is to the 4100, which gives you an additional preconfigured WAN port that allows you to easily separate networks. It jumps from $400 to $900.

I rate Netgate support eight out of 10. They're great. I called about an issue with a bad box. They answered the phone and I got somebody who was highly familiar with the product. He had me try several troubleshooting things, identified that the box was bad, and got me a replacement. 

Positive

We’ve used SonicWall and switched due to cost. Though SonicWall is easier to manage, the on-going costs are prohibitive.

The deployment difficulty depends on what you need to do. Let's say you get a box and plug it into your network, but you can't get it to work, so you call the folks at pfSense. They will help you configure it so that you can ping a remote device. That's pretty easy. 

I gave one of the pfSense boxes to one of my people who has minimal knowledge about setting up network devices. He could get it to ping in about 25 minutes. Then, I asked him to add a VLAN, and he's still working on that. That's been two and a half months. If someone needs something to put on their network, it's pretty easy, but if you want the full benefit of a firewall, it may take a while. One person is enough to do it. After deployment, you just need to do some periodic firmware updates. 

PfSense's pricing is reasonable. However, support is relatively expensive for smaller customers, and you need to pay per device to get it. So if Customer A is having an issue, I have to get support, and then I have to get support for Customer B, and so on. It would be nice as a managed services provider to get support for my company rather than individual devices.

I would compare the total cost of ownership to SonicWall. We can compare the basic functions of the Netgate 2100, the model we use most, to the SonicWall 3500. They have very similar functionality. The cost of the 3500 was closer to $4,000.

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. I recommend doing a lot of research or spending the $500 to get the extended support. 

We're using our offices including the main endpoint VPN connections from the main office to our seller offices.

The ability to load third-party apps, et cetera,  into the firewall is pretty useful for a commercial-grade router and file, which is very customizable.

Out of the box, it's about 90% plug-and-play. The last piece, you do need to know how you're setting the firewall up for your environment. It varies on what you're trying to do with it. It can be really easy or difficult, depending on your knowledge base for the application.

We were able to witness the benefits of the product pretty much immediately.

Once you've navigated around it, it's pretty self-explanatory as to where to go. Compared to other products out there, it's pretty easy.

We do have a sort of single pane of glass for management purposes. You do have to dig around. If we had, for example, ten pfSense routers deployed, it would be nice to have one console where you could see all ten devices, update them, and keep them all central. A management portal would be very nice.

I've been using the solution for seven years. 

The solution is very stable. Issues are rare unless a box gets hit with a power surge or something. 

I found the solution very scalable. I can load multiple VMs on it and add a second port onto it. Depending on your deployment, it is very scalable. 

I've only contacted support for corrupted systems. If the unit loses power and comes back on every once in a while, the file system gets corrupted, or it won't boot the device, and you have to reimage the whole thing, in those instances, I've had to reach out to them. They are pretty quick. I can get help within an hour even with just the free version. I imagine the paid version has good support. 

Positive

We used to use Ubiquiti, which was not a great solution. We also used something previously to that. Their interface was very clunky. You'd have to go through multiple different routes to get to the same thing that pfSense has on a single drop-down. pfSense has a more user-friendly setup. Plus, it has CLI integration, which is great. You can make configurations in the command prompt too, which is a lot easier.

To me, the setup is fairly easy. That said, I already knew what I was doing to set it up. If I were coming fresh out into the network and environment, I'd never switch one of the firewalls; there may be a challenge to go through and figure out what the router can do to make the deployment work. When you get the box, you plug it in. There are a lot of features that are ported in that don't come pre-installed. However, they have a complete database listed in their browser. You just go down and pick what services you need. If you don't know what is there, it may take you a while to figure out what the unit is capable of. 

There is no maintenance beyond occasional updates. They don't push those out too often. However, when they do come out, you have to go through them one by one to make sure the update is successful. It would be easier if you could do everything all at once and be done with it.

How long it takes to deploy varies as each office is different. If I'm building three or four VLANs, that's going to take time. In my role, I built one base configuration that contains the VLANs IP servers that I want to use. I've extracted that as a file that I can modify and push to different boxes. So if I get 100 2100 or 4100, it doesn't matter. All I have to do is change the interface names and push it back to the box. So to me, it's pretty fast, and it already has my settings ready to go.

I handled the initial setup myself. 

I use the community version. For configurations and troubleshooting, you do need to pay. I'm not sure what the pricing is for Plus.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

I'm a customer and end-user. 

I use it for my firewall at home and when virtualizing labs to do routing between different network segments. I use it in the business that I am currently with at our main office and our other site. I worked at an MSP before that, and it was the firewall that we recommended to clients who wanted to go beyond what you'd buy at Best Buy, like the random Linksys or Netgear. I haven't touched the enterprise level, like the expensive ones where you might have 20 different Netgate segments with failover.

We deploy it either on bare metal or virtualized on our own virtualization platform. We have not deployed it on any cloud. The primary cloud services we use are software as a service, so our firewall doesn't apply to that. If we ran our own set of servers in the cloud somewhere, we'd probably consider pfSense for routing between them, but we don't have that use case.

When I started using it back in the day, someone told me that there's this firewall you can install on an old PC to get all these features that are normally only available on expensive enterprise firewalls. 

I realized the benefits immediately. When I installed it, I had access to features like multi-WAN, which is more common now. You can get small home office routers with multi-WAN these days, but when I started a decade ago, it cost thousands of dollars and required enterprise equipment. It was mind-blowing that I installed it and could hook up two Internet connections for no extra money.

It doesn't directly prevent data loss because pfSense doesn't have a DLP function, but the security aspects, like the pfBlocker, ClamAV plugin, and proxy, are all great. The security components help prevent data loss by securing the network. As far as I know, pfSense doesn't have a data loss prevention function that scans for somebody trying to exfiltrate data. 

The failover or load-balancing WAN helps reduce downtime. It also supports high availability between two firewalls, although I've never set that up. Those would minimize downtime of the firewall individually and the company as a whole.

We don't use it that way, but it has extensive logging. If you were to dump all those logs into something like Graylog, Elasticsearch, etc., you could analyze and decide based on that data. We don't use it like that, but I know that with the extensive logging that it has, it could be used that way.

PfSense has an excellent ability to optimize performance, especially with the plugins. It helps me determine where my bandwidth is going and get reports on latency, jitter, etc. I use all of these features regularly. If the internet is slow, I can go see who's hogging it by downloading giant files, or I can identify where there's a lot of latency on a particular gateway.

I like that there's a community edition that I can install on my own virtual machines or hardware. I can test things without messing with them in production, which is incredibly useful. If you have a Juniper or Cisco, you can typically only afford one. 

You're forced to make changes in production and hope they don't break anything because there's no easy way to have a testing environment. The free version of pfSense offers load balancing or failover WAN, which is also helpful. Most commercial firewalls don't have that in the cheapest iteration of the hardware. 

The community edition makes it easy to learn because you can try it before buying it and putting it in production. There's no equivalent if you want to buy FortiGate, WatchGuard, or any of those and fiddle with them on your hardware before putting it in production.

Many plugins for pfSense are easy to install off the store, and they work. The basic function that you want to do are pretty easy. However, it is more complicated than your average home office router, but that's to be expected. The fact that it is an open-source project that's trying to be all things to all people does mean that sometimes things can get a little bit complex, sometimes unnecessarily. For example, the IPSec VPN setup has five hundred options, probably more than anyone needs, but it works. Their documentation is excellent. In instances where you might not figure it out on your own or the interface might not be super clear on how to do something, the documentation is usually good 99 percent of the time. 

I appreciate pfSense's flexibility. I can buy supported hardware from Netgate with it already on there, buy support for my own hardware, or run the community edition on my own hardware or a virtual machine and get all of the same functionality. 

Snort or Suricata don't block things they should out of the box. It's always been a pain point of pfSense. If you turn on Snort or Suricata for IPS or IDS, no setting is effectively set and forget. Turning any commercial firewall to the lowest setting will provide you with a decent amount of security with almost zero false positives, but pfSense is not that way. You've got a babysit Snort and Suricata to the point where sometimes you turn it off.  

I know one of their rising competitors, OPNsense, has the ETS rules. I forget who provides it, but you turn on a rule set, and they just work. They have a built-in set of rules for Snort and Suricata that you turn on and it provides a reasonable amount of security. That has always been a pain in the neck with pfSense. It's the single biggest thing that they could do to improve it. Honestly, they're losing business OPNsense for that one reason. 

I have used pfSense for at least 10 years.

As long as you don't use bad hardware, it's fine. PfSense has issues with some Realtek network chips. If you use bad hardware and get bad results, it's your own fault. I usually have as much uptime as there is between patches. It's highly solid after reboot other than installing the most recent patch.

I've never used pfSense at the high-end enterprise scale, but it can scale nearly infinitely as far as I can tell. There's a higher-level pfSense that's carrier grade that can handle hundreds of gigabit routing. We've got a Netgate plan and never had any problems. 

We see solid performance no matter what we're running on it. The fact is that it can run on a low-end, low-power fanless ARM CPU for a branch office. PfSense is usable in a lot of situations. It's also extremely scalable, which is also flexible in the sense that you can install it on some random old PC that you have at your house and use it for your home firewall. You can also use it in an enterprise with a multi-gigabit incoming connection and thousands of clients.

I rate Netgate support nine out of 10. I have contacted them a couple of times over the years. Each time I called them, they solved my problem or gave me a workaround within a reasonable time. It seemed like the people I talked to knew what they were doing. Sometimes, you call technical support and end up with first-level tech support who reads off a script. They don't listen to a word that you say and tell you to do all the things you've already done. 

I've been able to get people who ask pertinent questions and ask for logs. They remote into my machine or SSH into the firewall, so I'm happy with it. It was worth the money that we paid when we needed it.

Positive

I have used Smoothwall and OPNsense. Back then, I used to have a weird firewall that I can never remember. If you count OpenWRT, a replacement firmware for Linksys, as a firewall. However, you can't install it on any x86 OS that you want.

It depends on whether the user is familiar with general concepts like putting an ISO on a flash drive and booting off of it using some basic command line. It's very easy if they've installed operating systems before and understand how to boot off a flash drive. Flash the image to a flash drive and boot off it, then follow the prompts. If they don't have that basic experience, I wouldn't tell them to deploy it themselves. I'd tell them to buy a box from Netgate with support. 

That can be tricky if you've never done it or don't understand the concept of moving off of a flash drive and installing an OS. There's not anything Netgate can do about that because there are thousands of different pieces of hardware you can try deploying pfSense to, and pfSense can't give specific detailed instructions for every one of them. That's when you go buy Netgate. 

The first time, it took me days because I had no idea what I was doing. Now, I can set up a pfSense with good basic functionality in an hour. It doesn't take very long. I've probably done it hundreds of times now.

After deployment, you've got to install patches periodically. If you're using Snort or Suricata, you've got to pay attention to those. If you're using pfBlocker, you've got to install patches. If you're not using any of the plugins like Snort, Suricata, pfBlocker, Grid, or any of those sorts of things for advanced functionality, then there isn't any maintenance other than periodically installing your patches like anything else. 

The community edition provides all of the basic functions for free on your own hardware, and pfSense Plus comes with a Netgate appliance. It's a reasonable $200 bucks or so to buy pfSense for your hardware, and then it's $800 or $900 a year for commercial support, which is also reasonable for a firewall.

It's hard to gauge the total cost of ownership because there's a free, open-source version that, if you know a lot about pfSense already, it's almost zero cost. You can run it on any old hardware you've got. If you need support and multi-gigabit IPSec WAN speeds, you'll need to pay for that, but you will with anybody. 

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. They could polish up a few things, especially regarding IDS/IPS rules. A few interface things are a little more complicated than necessary. 

If you're moving to pfSense from a random Linksys or Netgate router, you need to realize it will be more difficult, and you'll need to learn more about networking concepts than you necessarily had to do with the random router that you've got. It's more complicated like that. 

That's to be expected because you're either a techie kind of person who thinks building your own firewall is fun, and they're willing to spend the time and effort to learn it. Or you want an alternative to FortiGate, Juniper, or whatever, and you want to buy a commercial Netgate product. This is going to be more complicated than the Linksys router I bought for $80 dollars from Best Buy.

We use pfSense as our router and firewall on several sites.

We implemented the pfSense open platform because we wanted to move away from SonicWall.

We use the community edition of the software and purchase the Netgate router separately. I used white boxes initially, but now I'm also using the Netgate hardware. It's a great product.

The pfSense offers exceptional flexibility, far surpassing SonicaWall's capabilities. Its intuitive interface, complete with a better layout of management screens, makes it a breeze to use. While Cisco routers may be overkill for many applications, pfSense performs well.

Using pfSense is easy. It has intuitive management screens. And if I ever run into a blockade, I pay for the technician annually. I am confident in sticking with that platform. It's always worked for me. It's tried and true.

I hired a seasoned professional with extensive experience using pfSense on white boxes for years, specifically the community edition. His mastery of configuration was evident, and I was impressed by his expertise. After he walked me through several scenarios, I was convinced of the benefits of the Netgate product and began replacing my aging SonicWall devices with it, drawn to the ease of use that Netgate offered.

Netgate pfSense provides a single-pane-of-glass to manage all our firewall needs.

It's relatively straightforward for a novice to deploy pfSense, likely easier than SonicWall. However, I've used SonicWall extensively and am gradually phasing them out. While SonicWall is a solid product, pfSense is remarkably easy to set up.

The intuitiveness and ease of use are the most valuable features of pfSense.

One thing that has always bothered me is that when I buy an appliance, there are two tiers of support: email-only and a premium tier, like TAC, that allows me to speak to someone on the phone. If I'm purchasing their hardware, I should have phone support for a certain period, even at the lower price point. My only complaint is that I need phone support, not just email, because if there's a support issue, I don't have time to wait for an email response. I need to speak to someone immediately. Therefore, I think I should receive TAC support for the Netgate pfSense for at least the first year after purchasing the hardware.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for six years.

I have never experienced any stability issues with pfSense.

To scale we need to add a unit.

I had email support for about a week before calling Netgate to request telephone support. I explained that if I'm calling for assistance, I'm likely experiencing an urgent issue and need immediate help. I decided to pay $699 or so for annual telephone support, which has been excellent. The support is prompt and effective, making it well worth the investment.

Positive

I previously used SonicWall but migrated to pfSense because it is a more intuitive router and firewall.

Compared to Cisco, Netgate is definitively the product that is better for my use case. I know there's a want in the industry for Cisco devices. However, in the hotel vertical, I just don't need it, nor do I need to pay for the expertise in configuration of that platform.  

The first time I deployed a pfSense, a seasoned professional guided me through the process, making it incredibly easy to complete.

Netgate pfSense is fairly priced. It's probably the most powerful router firewall I've come across.

The total cost of ownership of pfSense is reasonable, considering the value it provides. I appreciate the VPN, router, and firewall functionality it offers, which is essential for my business operations. In fact, the ongoing costs associated with pfSense do not significantly exceed the initial purchase price.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

Other than firmware updates, pfSense requires minimal maintenance. I update the firmware every two to three months for routine maintenance or immediately if a security vulnerability is discovered.

For a new user, I would recommend TAC support. I've spoken with others in my industry who have had positive experiences with TAC, particularly compared to email support. They've reported being up and running within five minutes of contacting TAC. Additionally, problem resolution is also swift and effective. So, I highly recommend new users invest in TAC support. It's well worth the money.

I use Netgate pfSense as my office firewall.

I implemented pfSense as a firewall, VPN, and content filtering solution using pfBlocker and configured it to verify HAProxy certificates.

Most of our pfSense deployments are on existing machines with a small amount in the cloud.

pfSense offers excellent flexibility and works well with both physical appliances and virtual machines.

The ease of adding features to pfSense and configuring them depends mainly on the user's experience. I find it extremely easy.

Firewalls and Network Address Translation offer immediate benefits once configured, as they are foundational security measures. Other features, however, require more extensive configuration and testing before their advantages become apparent.

Compared to other firewall solutions, pfSense's interface is user-friendly and straightforward.

pfSense allows us to configure multiple internet connections and firewall rules to minimize downtime.

It provides visibility into our network by capturing and delivering log data, such as Syslog, firewall logs, and other relevant information. This enables us to make informed decisions based on data analysis.

pfSense can help optimize network performance. When using appliances, we can install more than ten gigabit network interface cards and add more as needed, depending on the hardware capabilities. Typically, new appliances come equipped with ten-gigabit network adapters or ports. We can significantly enhance network and server communication speeds by fully utilizing these ten-gigabit connections.

The most valuable features of pfSense are the pfBlocker, HAProxy, NAT, and VPN.

I am unsure if it's feasible, but I have previously utilized a web VPN interface with Cisco Firewalls that allows VPN connections through a website, eliminating the installation of VPN software. Such a feature would be a valuable addition to pfSense. Additionally, an easy method to monitor pfSense within other monitoring software would be beneficial.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years.

We have encountered only minor and infrequent stability issues.

Netgate pfSense is highly scalable.

The quality of the technical support is good, but if we cause an issue, we have to pay for the support hours.

Positive

I have previously used WatchGuard Firebox and OPNsense, but I prefer pfSense for its excellent usability within my company. Other firewalls like WatchGuard and OPNsense are often retained due to customer preference or specific requirements, but most of my deployments utilize Netgate's pfSense.

Deploying a single pfSense box is relatively straightforward. However, the process can become more complex if outdated hardware is used and network cables must be reconfigured. Deployments using Netgate appliances tend to be more straightforward.

We can have the Web GUI up and running in under 30 minutes, and a complete deployment can last up to four hours. One person is required for each deployment.

The pricing is reasonable.

Netgate pfSense offers effective total cost of ownership by combining firewall, VPN, and router functionalities into a single solution.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

pfSense does not have any built-in features specifically designed to prevent data loss. Instead, we must configure various functions to indirectly protect against data loss, primarily as a preventative measure against unauthorized access to our servers and equipment.

I use both the paid and community versions of pfSense. Most of my appliances use the paid version. In the cloud, some virtual machines come with the free community version.

Maintenance is required to open ports and create VPN users.

I use pfSense for my home network firewall.

I've installed pfSense on nearly every environment type, including Virtual Manager and most virtual machine hypervisors like Microsoft Hyper-V, ESXi, and even older versions like VM Player. Currently, it's running as a VM in Virtual Machine Manager on my NAS, showcasing its flexibility.

pfSense is a highly flexible product with a rich feature set. While designed with a graphical user interface in mind, it also offers command-line access for greater control. This versatility allows users to tailor the product to their specific needs.

Adding packages to pfSense is straightforward; navigate to the package manager and click "add." However, incorporating hardware, such as a dongle, is slightly more complex.

I saw the benefits of pfSense immediately. Going from a SOHO router to a pfSense one is night and day. pfSense is an enterprise-grade product that is easy to use and has a simple GUI.

The dashboard is very handy. I use mine almost daily. I can put up the widgets I want to see or remove widgets I don't want to see. It has pertinent information about my services running, any VPN connections I have, and clients connected. It's a nice dashboard.

The failover functionality for connectivity helps minimize downtime. It has also been simplified recently with some excellent added features. If I lose or corrupt my image, I can easily reinstall the operating system and restore my configuration. I'm pleased with these features of pfSense.

pfSense is a straightforward, feature-rich firewall. I am a big fan.

One area where Netgate could improve is communication with its user base. While they make an effort, much of their user base isn't composed of enterprise-level engineers who regularly read release notes and stay abreast of feature changes. A few years ago, they held a commendable meeting with forum moderators to discuss upcoming changes, which was appreciated. However, they could enhance their communication further by providing more precise information about changes and release timelines for new features.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for 19 years.

The only time I need to restart pfsense is when I update it.

I have not contacted technical support for any technical issues. I did contact them for a replacement box, and their support was fantastic. I received the replacement box within a couple of days. I do contact their TAC when they release a new version. That process is changing with their new Netgate, the store, and everything. Previously, if we had a Netgate appliance and wanted a new image to install natively, we had to contact TAC with a ticket. The turnaround time was always excellent, just a couple of minutes. They would provide a link where we could download the image. I've been surprised by how fast they respond sometimes. Even when they're in the middle of deploying a new version, I've reached out and received a download link within five minutes. So they're usually on the spot.

Positive

Over the years, I've played with quite a few different firewalls, but I always go back to pfSense. It's a leader in its field, with its direct competition being OPNsense. There was a feud when they forked off. pfSense is the leader in that sense.

Installing pfSense should be relatively straightforward, even for a network engineer unfamiliar with the product. The process is user-friendly and guided, similar to installing an operating system like Windows. With a basic understanding of networking concepts, setting up pfSense can be accomplished within minutes. The main challenge arises when users need more fundamental networking knowledge, such as understanding IP addresses or the difference between DHCP and static configurations. For someone with networking experience, however, the installation process is quick and straightforward.

The pricing is reasonable. It costs money to run a product. It used to be completely free, and I think that's where many people became a bit disappointed when the pricing model was introduced, but I think it's a pretty fair price point. Some users don't understand that they can't offer everything for free. The development work involved costs money.

The inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities significantly reduces the total cost of ownership. In my previous role, we utilized pfSense in some locations due to its superior cost-effectiveness compared to other enterprise solutions. For smaller companies or those aiming to reduce expenses, it's a highly affordable option, and even their hardware is reasonably priced.

I rate Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

I usually use it on premises, and I use it for different purposes. I use it for network security for my infrastructure, and I use it for my web servers and data servers that are on-premises.

My main use cases for Netgate pfSense are proxy servers and IDS/IPS, blocking ads, clearing the network for adware and malware, and monitoring the network flow. 

As an open-source solution, Netgate pfSense is highly flexible because a person with kernel-level or code-level experience can control the firewall as per their requirements, and there are multiple packages and tools readily available to integrate with Netgate pfSense. In the IT industry, most of the tools can be integrated with pfSense.

Adding packages to Netgate pfSense is very easy. I just need to search for the required package and then install and configure it.

Netgate pfSense has a very intuitive dashboard. The information is readily available on the dashboard.

Netgate pfSense has routing facilities that help minimize downtime while having multiple internet connections. If one bandwidth goes down, it automatically diverts to the other. 

Netgate pfSense helps prevent data loss by monitoring data transactions and network protocols, allowing us to block certain amounts of data and implement policies to reduce malware and firewall threats. 

From my perspective, the best feature of Netgate pfSense is the load balancer, as I usually take multiple internet connections. I can use both internet providers' bandwidth as a single network bandwidth, which helps in a very smooth network traffic flow. Netgate pfSense has a very interactive and intuitive dashboard that provides all the major and informative information that is readily available.

Netgate pfSense has positively impacted my organization because when we look at other firewalls or alternatives, they are costly. 

For my requirements and use cases, it is sufficient for me, and I have never faced a need for additional features. AI would always be a plus point, and if pfSense could change its framework from FreeBSD and PHP to a different language and Linux OS, that could enhance security.

I have been providing services for network solutions and network security, and I have been using Netgate pfSense for almost four to five years.

Netgate pfSense is definitely stable; I've multiple sites using it, and they are live right now. I've at least 20 sites operational.

It is a scalable product. I would rate its scalability a seven out of ten.

I have never used the services of Netgate, but I can rate the product itself as a 10 out of 10 because it has been very helpful to me.

Neutral

I have previously used Fortinet and Sophos. The major reason I switched from Fortinet and Sophos to Netgate pfSense was to mitigate the financial aspect, as those alternatives were costing us lakhs.

Deploying Netgate pfSense is very easy because I used to deploy it on my personal hardware. Whatever spare hardware I have, I install it directly on that. Installing and configuring it is very easy for me.

I deploy Netgate pfSense for various companies. There are many startups in India that require a cost-effective solution that allows them to use their hardware and provide basic security. 

Deploying infrastructure for a new company takes me approximately one day, unless there are separate requirements to configure, such as creating usernames and passwords for each user, which may take two to three days.

I do everything in-house by myself. I am the only person involved in the deployment.

I have seen a return on investment with cost savings after implementing Netgate pfSense, as other firewalls would cost me lakhs of rupees while pfSense is free.

Everything we need is covered in the free version of the open-source pfSense. I have never used the licensed version or required certified partner help to implement or deploy anything.

If we are not purchasing any support or incurring any Netgate costs, the total cost of ownership for Netgate pfSense is zero, as it is freely available to download and install, requiring only hardware for deployment.

The cost of other firewalls goes to thousands and lakhs of rupees compared to pfSense, which costs zero. If we opt for Fortinet, it costs about one lakh thirty thousand Indian rupees for the firewall, and then it costs up to almost fifteen to twenty thousand annually for the user subscription. With Netgate pfSense, all those things get covered at zero cost.

I did not evaluate any other options aside from Netgate pfSense because it was the only solution I could find that effectively met my needs. It works for our use cases.

In terms of data-driven decisions, there is a package that can help me understand each and every packet and time. I have not gone through that avenue yet, but it allows us to get all the data for data-driven decisions.

There is a paid feature to increase performance, but there are multiple tweaks available in the advanced settings that can help increase bandwidth or usability based on requirements.

I have not used pfSense Plus on Amazon EC2 VMs because there was no requirement. 

I would rate Netgate pfSense a ten out of ten.

I run a company that is a managed service provider. We supply our clients with products and purchase on their behalf. We install pfSense in their offices or main client offices.

What I like most about the product is that it is simple to use. I use it at home and in other locations. It offers great value for money because there are no licensing issues apart from the support package. I don't have to worry about licenses expiring or the firewall not working. The overall security gain is stable and reliable.

Multi-appliance monitoring and management, like a single pane of glass, would be very nice to have. A centralized management console would help us. There might be improvements to the web UI, which could benefit from a new look. It looks a little dated, although everyone knows where the options are.

I have used the solution for four years.

The solution is stable. I'm happy with the stability, I would rate it a nine. I had some minor issues, like hardware power supply failure after two to three years, but it was rock-solid until it failed.

The solution is pretty much scalable. I would say nine, although I'm not sure why.

I used their support about two times. I don't need much support, as I've managed to fix everything by myself. I would rate it ten because they went above and beyond expectations.

Positive

Sophos was used in some cases. Some clients require products which are used in their other offices.

The initial setup takes about one hour. It is fairly simple and sometimes only takes half an hour, depending on what needs to be done.

We implemented it in-house with one person.

Because we are familiar with the product, the ROI is between ten to twenty percent. We have been saving by having a stable, well-known product.

I estimate it to be between four or five, something like that. I cannot say it is cheap, but it is not expensive either, so let's say three or four.

I usually advise having a solid firewall with a low cost of ownership, which is why I rate it nine. There's room for improvement, as I would love to have more control over the packets. Overall, I would rate the product nine out of ten.

We use the Netgate pfSense firewalls for each location in the same metropolitan area.

We implemented Netgate pfSense at the most basic level, aiming for a reliable firewall solution without incurring the high costs associated with Cisco products.

Netgate pfSense is a flexible firewall solution. It supports OpenVPN and IPsec, providing various options for establishing secure connections. Additionally, it offers features for monitoring user browsing behavior, enabling administrators to implement restrictions if desired. Overall, pfSense is a versatile platform that can be adapted to meet the needs of different network environments.

Adding new features to pfSense is quick. We select the feature we want and click install.

One feature that pfSense had, which my Cisco PIX firewall lacked, was built-in failover. With the Cisco PIX, if I wanted to implement failover, for instance, if one internet connection went down and I had a backup, I had to purchase additional hardware and a whole other firewall. However, with pfSense, failover configured two ports on the existing box to switch between them if one connection failed.

The security of pfSense is excellent. It effectively prevents unauthorized access.  To date, we haven't experienced any security breaches.

pfSense Plus provides a cold spare that helps minimize downtime. In the event of a failure, the other firewall can be activated while the broken one is restored and configured.

We saw the value of pfSense within a few days. Some of it was instant, but other things took time. When we first implemented it, we saw some value, and a few days later, it kept impressing me with more. A week went by, and I still saw more value.

With a firewall, VPN, and other router functionalities, pfSense offers an excellent total cost of ownership. It's a one-time purchase with no hidden fees, making it significantly more affordable than Cisco products, which require additional licensing, subscriptions, support, and per-feature purchases. While pfSense necessitates some time investment to learn and configure, this is comparable to the effort needed for any enterprise-grade solution, including Cisco, which also incurs substantial licensing costs. Overall, pfSense's upfront cost and user's time represent its total cost of ownership. 

Netgate pfSense is 100 percent flexible and configurable. We can do anything with it. We have not run into any scenario where it didn't work.

The overall documentation has room for improvement. Currently, we need to search forums for answers, as the official documentation by Netgate is not very helpful. The community support is excellent, and there should be a feedback loop to incorporate missing information from the community forums into the official documentation.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for four years.

I would rate the stability of pfSense ten out of ten.

The scalability of pfSense fits our company requirements.

Based on both my partner's and my experience with technical support, it is excellent.

The user community support is fantastic. It's a large and engaged community where members show genuine interest in one another's questions.

Positive

I switched from Cisco Firewalls to pfSense Firewalls. I had a Cisco PIX, but they started implementing a subscription model where we had to pay for individual features. It was like, if we wanted this feature, it's a dollar. And if we wanted that feature, it's another dollar. I decided I was done with that approach and wanted something different. I like that with Netgate, what we buy is what we get. It's not a subscription model. We can get a support subscription, which is perfectly natural to me, but we don't have to buy or pay extra for every feature. We get what you get.

It was a gradual learning experience, beginning with our initial purchase and installation of a pfSense firewall. Its features impressed us, so we decided to replace another firewall with pfSense to enable failover capabilities. This success led to a broader implementation across our network. It wasn't a planned, calculated rollout; rather, it evolved organically as we replaced outdated firewalls and discovered the benefits of pfSense, particularly its ability to work in tandem with other pfSense devices for enhanced functionality.

The initial deployment takes a couple of hours and can be done by one person.

Netgate pfSense offers good value for its price. I prioritize getting the most out of my money, so I choose pfSense. I don't always seek the cheapest or most expensive option but rather the best value for my investment. With pfSense, I get the most product for every dollar spent.

I would rate Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

I am one of two IT people in the organization, and we are the only two who can access the pfSense firewalls. We have what will soon be four metropolitan locations that use pfSense.

Other than updating pfSense, no other maintenance is required.

I recommend pfSense to others. It's an awesome product that fits everything we've ever needed, and they don't overcharge for every little license feature.