OPNsense Reviews

We upgrade our clients when they are ready for the newer versions of OPNsense.

We are one of the local cloud providers in Indonesia. We implement OPNsense for the VPN and IPSec. We also collaborate with Zerotier to provide SD-WAN.  

Our customers have solutions that integrate between on-premises and our cloud.

We provide this solution for several clients, in multi-location offices. We have several retail customers in the city and we provide OPNsense with plug-in remote access. 

We also use OPNsense for remote access, and IPSec gives them access to a cloud environment as well as on-premises.

OPNsense is easy to scale when running on the hardware.

The interface needs to be simplified. It is not user-friendly.

The bandwidth management is easy to use, but very hard to implement. The multi-provider internet is protected by OPNsence but the features are limited, and not stable.

The high availability feature is not feasible when the hardware fails.

I have been working with OPNsense since 2008.

Internally we are using the latest version. 

The stability of OPNsense needs improvement.

OPNsense is commonly used in large enterprise companies.

We have not yet contacted technical support. All of the technical issues are resolved within our company.

We are also using pfSense.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's an easy process.

It takes one hour to deploy.

We provide maintenance for our clients at a cost, however, 90% of our clients are familiar with the product and able to maintain the solution themselves.

We are implementors, and we provide this solution for our clients.

As an appliance, it's in the medium price range.

OPNsense is suitable for Small to Medium-sized companies.

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

I would rate OPNsense an eight out of ten.

I am currently working with OPNsense to see if I can learn it. This product is used in small to medium-sized businesses for security, UTM, and other similar operations. We are a solution provider and this is one of the security solutions that we implement for our clients.

Offering this solution has provided some of our clients with firewall protection and UTM, which basically just protects them from the internet.

The most valuable features are reporting, the Sensei plugin, and firewall capabilities.

The vendor should offer compatibility-approved boxes, or at least stock one with OPNsense already installed. This would make it a one-stop-shop, and people would not have to worry about sourcing the hardware separately.

I would like to see better SD-WAN performance. I think that could be a very good bonus because SD-WAN is all the rage these days. That is probably the big thing that people need to improve upon, in terms of combining two, three, or four links.

The interface should continue to improve, which would make things a bit easier. For me, it was already easy, but nonetheless, it is quicker to install a FortiGate firewall.

I have been working with OPNsense for approximately one year.

This is a very stable product and I've had no issues with it.

This product is very scalable. I always buy hardware that can handle a lot of connections and a lot of users. So, in terms of scalability, all you have to do is upgrade your hardware. Or, it is especially scalable if you use the VM version because you only have to provision more resources.

We regularly have between 20 and 50 users, although sometimes it is as little as 5 or 10.        

I have not been in contact with technical support. So far, everything has been good because I just use Google to find all of the answers and all of my solutions.

I primarily work with FortiGate, but I am currently dabbling in OPNSense to see if I can learn it. I've also installed Cisco in the past, as well as Sophos.

FortiGate is a better firewall but that is commercial software that you have to buy a license for. OPNsense is suitable for small to medium-sized businesses. FortiGate is definitely quicker to install because you just buy the appliance. It's also more user-friendly.

If you dabble a bit with OPNsense, it can do about 90% of what FortiGate can do, but FortiGate is more user-friendly. Of course, with OPNsense being open-source, it will always beat FortiGate on price.

I think that with FortiGate, it is easier to log a support call. I haven't really needed technical support for OPNsense, but I know that FortiGate has the score logging facility, whereby you can just quickly log a call. There's also support in South Africa and I know company people that I can just call for help with FortiGate. But with OPNsense, I haven't really had a complicated setup, so for me, it has been okay and it hasn't been an issue.

The SD-WAN is also better on FortiGate. I think that they are heavily focused on security, so they might have better application profiles and other things, such as application threat detections.

Although about 80% of our clients ask for FortiGate, some of our clients ask for Sophos instead. For example, there are some banks and commercial institutions that ask for Sophos.

The initial setup is straightforward and quite simplified. I work in a Linux environment so for me, it will be a bit easier.

OPNsense is an open-source solution and it is free to use. You need only purchase the hardware.

The suitability of this product often depends on the size of the company, although sometimes there are clients that just want FortiGate and they're not open for negotiation. Personally, I like open-source and it's always a bonus if I can get stuff for free.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It is the main firewall for one of our locations. We use it for intrusion detection and prevention. We are using the latest software version, but the hardware is not the latest.

The VPN server feature is the most valuable. It is integrated with Radius and AAA for doing accounting and authentication.

Insight view is also an important feature for me at this time. It allows me to assess our network traffic. I also like the firewall feature. The BSD kernel has a packet filter. It is one of the most solid frameworks for firewalls.

Its user interface is one of the best interfaces I have used. 

The only thing that I would like to see improved is the Insight or the NetFlow analysis part. It would be good to have the possibility to dig down on the Insight platform. Right now, we can easily do only a few analyses. If this page becomes more powerful, it surely will be a well-adopted platform.

I started to use OPNsense about three years ago.

It is stable, but for us, it is not yet so reliable. Our server is an old DL120 HP Server, which is from the year 2006. We have ordered another appliance. After we receive the new appliance, it would be more stable for us.

It scales well for our needs. I haven't tried any horizontal or vertical scaling so far.

I did not need any technical support.

I used pfSense two years ago, but I was not so happy with our system protection. I have also previously used Cisco ASA appliance. It was a 5505 model, but it failed because of the hardware issues. It was prone to hardware failure, and in one month, we lost both firewalls. It was also not so easy to see traffic with Cisco ASA. I could not easily identify traffic issues. 

The initial setup was straightforward. I also have experience with BSD services, so I had no issues at all. It took us half an hour to deploy it for 250 users.

We deployed it ourselves. There was no need for a consultant for the deployment. We have two engineers for its deployment and maintenance.

It is not an expensive product. Basically, I deployed it because it was the fastest solution to satisfy our needs in open source.

We plan to continue using this solution. Right now, we are settling our networks. We plan to expand its usage, but I don't think it will happen until 2022.

It has a good user interface. Its configuration is simple but requires a little planning. It is much simpler than the Cisco ASA configuration.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate OPNsense a nine out of ten. I am happy with it.

I use OPNsense for network security.

What I like the most about OPNsense is that it offers an easy-to-use dashboard for device management and control. It also provides good security.

In terms of improvement, the performance could be enhanced.

I have been using OPNsense for a year.

Overall, I would rate OPNsense as a ten out of ten. I would recommend it to others.

The system in general is quite flexible.

The interface isn't so friendly user. But we have some technicians here who are quite confident with this tool. OPNSense could maybe add sets of rules so it's simpler to manage different groups with particular needs.

We've used OPNSense over the last six months.

The support service isn't very accessible, so you have to look at the forums to solve some issues. It would be better if they could offer this product with an associated support service.

It's quite easy to install and configure the rules.

The main cost is the hardware. We don't pay anything for the software.

I would rate OPNSense five out of 10.

I am using OPNsense as a security platform at work but am currently working from home and using it for network access.

I have found the solution has some great features overall, such as guest access capabilities, dashboards, and ease of use. There is plenty of documentation and support and it has the plugins that I needed.

The logging could improve in OPNsense.

I have been using OPNsense for approximately one year.

The solution is stable.

OPNsense is scalable.

I have contacted the support for the Open Source plugin and the company has been really supportive. Within approximately an hour or two I was receiving a response, I was really impressed with the support.

There is fantastic community support available online.

The installation was straightforward.

I have been very happy with the solution.

I rate OPNsense an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for an SD-WAN firewall.

We have found pretty much all the features of the solution to be valuable.

The solution could be more secure. 

I have been using OPNsense for upwards of ten years. 

The solution is very stable.

The solution is scalable. 

As we have in excess of 2,000 solutions deployed in the field, there is no need for us to increase its usage. It is already sufficiently increased. 

In the past we used pfSense. We have also used Sophos and Palo Alto Firewall but have replaced many of these solutions.

Our initial setup was more on the straightforward side.

It did not take a long time, although this can hinge on what needs to be accomplished. 

We handled the deployment on our own. 

The technical team required for deployment and maintenance purposes is small, probably around five people for every 100 devices.

It consist of a combination of managers, administrators and engineers.

The choice of a license on a yearly or monthly basis is optional. 

The solution is not expensive. 

There are several hundred users in our organization who are utilizing the solution. 

I would absolutely recommend the solution to others who are contemplating its implementation.

I rate OPNsense as a ten out of ten. 

The solution is primarily used as a basic firewall. I'm running my WiFi through it.

The solution is very user-friendly.

It's easy to manage and deploy.

The solution is good for a basic firewall for a small business or for home use.

The solution can't compete with next-generation firewalls.

The solution would not be suitable for anything large-scale.

I've been using the solution for a year or two.

There are issues with the VPN availability, but overall, the is a pretty smooth connection.

We have two people running the solution and another 50 to 80 people using the solution, so we have a relatively small setup.

The solution is scalable and can be deployed to multiple VMs.

I've never reached out to technical support. If I run into problems, I tend to Google queries in order to find solutions.

I was not at the company when they had a different solution, so I am unsure as to what it was.

Currently, I'm looking for another firewall and I am working on upgrading. We may use an Ignition firewall in the near future.

I've also deployed a couple of different firewalls in the past, including Huawei.

The solution wasn't too complex, but the VPN setup isn't so reliable. It sometimes misbehaves or malfunctions or breaks down automatically. Occasionally it disconnects and you can't transfer the data from it.

Deployment took about a day or so. It takes maybe five or six hours to get everything up and running.

Since it's a simple firewall, anyone who has basic firewall knowledge can run and maintain it.

I had some help internally from our network team when I was implementing the solution. However, I did not need outside assistance from a consultant or integrator.

We are using a free version of the solution.

I'm just a customer. I'm not a partner or reseller.

I'm not sure which version of the solution our organization is currently using. I understand that it is the most up-to-date version. I updated it two months ago.

The solution is good for a small business or home. I'm not sure what the paid version offers or if it has more security features that would be suitable for larger businesses. The version I'm using works well and is simple. It's more reliable than a router.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.