pfSense Reviews

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

pfSense prevents unwanted access. If you configured things properly then you'll be protected to the distant level. There is still a need for products like a SIEM, but the UTMs like pfSense or Sophos, prevent most of the problems. PfSense has a lot of add on possibilities

The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, and  VPN  Are most common..

This is a feature-rich product.

The documentation is good.

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

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

One of the things that are usually outside of the UTM, or system on the gateway, is the SIEM. It is an advanced system for managing the possibility of threats. It is not normally part of such devices but it would be nice if the pfSense interface were integrated with it.

We have more than three xears of experience with pfSense.

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

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

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

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

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

Positive

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

In the past, we were the developers of a product called Network Defender, but it has reached end-of-life. We were pioneers in the area and were one of the first who was making UTMs. The name "UTM" didn't exist at that point. We were partners with Cobalt, who was the first appliance creator. Their appliances include web servers and email servers. When Cobalt was bought by Sun, we made our first Network Defender line. That became the first appliance, which had firewall content inspection, content protection, intrusion prevention, intrusion detection, antivirus, and email and web servers at that time, all in one box.

From that point on, we had our line, which was distributed all over the Middle East, Asia, and some parts of Europe. We then worked with Palo Alto, we were a Cisco partner the entire time, and we work with both Sophos and pfSense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palo Alto, Fortiner, Sopbos

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The product is very powerful.

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

We are at the moment looking to use it as a proxy service so that we can limit what websites people go and view and that sort of thing. That's an area I've struggled with a little bit at the moment and it could be a bit easier to set up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are just end-users and customers.

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

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

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

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

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

I use it as a firewall and also as a router because you can address what you want to do with it. It can do network advanced translation (NAT).

It is sitting on my own server. It is on a remote server on a private network.

It is very simple to use. I'm working faster now. I don't have to configure a switch and sync some VLANs on the switch. I can concentrate more on my work because I know that pfSense is guarding my network. It improves my workflow a lot. 

The plugins or add-ons are most valuable. Sometimes, they are free of charge, and sometimes, you have to pay for them, but you can purchase or download very valuable plugins or add-ons to perform internal testing of your network and simulate a denial-of-service attack or whichever attack you want to simulate. You can also remote and monitor your network and see where the gap is. Did you forget a printer port? Most attacks at the moment are happening through printers, and they can tell you immediately that you forgot to close the port of the printer. There are more than one million printers that are in danger, and everybody knows that hackers are using them to enter the network. So, you can download plugins to protect your network.

It is not only a firewall; it can also do some routing or network advanced translation (NAT), which makes it very powerful.

It is very simple to use. As long as you understand the basics or fundamentals of networking, you can manage everything very quickly with it.

The web is evolving every day. So, the product should be constantly improved with more regular updates. Things are constantly changing. There are obsolete protocols, and then there are new protocols. For my own use, it is not an issue, but for somebody who is more at the forefront of internet browsing, it could be a problem.

There could be a way to remote to it through a mobile app. You can always browse through your browser on your mobile phone or tablet, but it would be good to have a dedicated app. I understand that iOS and Android developers are expensive, but there should be a mobile app.

I have been using this solution since May.

It is very stable as long as you don't change the winning theme. When it is working, leave it working. My rule number one is one computer, one function. So, pfSense does that one function, and I don't try to use it for anything else. I could do some File Transfer Protocol or things like that, but it is not made for them. I don't restart it and move it. I only do the security updates and change the username and password very often.

I don't require much scalability. It is fine for a small-scale company with about 30 devices, such as printers, computers, etc. I'm only working with a few people, and I don't have any traffic problems, but a company with 50 or 60 users could have problems with it. Currently, there are four to five users, and I'm providing multimedia services to four to five people. 

It is being used extensively. Sometimes, its usage is 50 times a day, and sometimes, there is no usage. I don't work on it on a daily basis. It also depends on the project I'm working on. We have plans to increase its usage.

Their support is good.

I didn't use any other solution previously. I didn't have a need for it. Only in May, I had the need to deploy my own service.

It is easy to set up if you understand the protocols. If you understand the theory of what is a firewall and what is a router, its initial setup is straightforward.

Its deployment took one week. The strategy was simple. It involved blocking certain traffic, allowing certain traffic, and making ACL or a list of undesired operations such as cookies so that if it is impossible to sniff, and there is complete security. If someone is trying to enter, I immediately get a message on my phone, whether I am in the county or abroad. I immediately get a message saying that somebody is trying to enter, and I am able to counterattack immediately. That's a big advantage of it.

I did it on my own with the advice of some of my friends who have much deeper knowledge than me. It is also very well-documented on the web, and there is a big community.

I am also taking care of its maintenance. I don't have any maintenance except that sometimes, the server on which this solution is implemented has issues. Its maintenance mainly involves regularly checking the systems.

There is a big return on investment because FortiGate is 60 to 70 times more expensive, which could be a big problem for me. It is more expensive than my car. I have a small budget and a small car.

It is about €1,000. It is a one-time payment. I do not have a monthly or yearly subscription. I don't subscribe to any subscription because I hate cloud services.

There are no additional costs.

I would advise others to try it and see if it is good for them. It is a very good product for me, but that might not be the case for other users. There are so many solutions, but I'm really happy with it. For my scale, it is good. If you are Amazon or a company with one million connections every minute, don't ever use this. It is not made for that. It is perfect for small-scale networks.

I would rate it a nine out of 10. It needs more regular updates, so I can't rate it a 10, but it is very easy to use, stable, and solid. 

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

What I found most valuable is the cost of the platform, the flexibility of the platform, and the fact that the ongoing fees are not there as they are with the competitor. Some people may think you're taking a risk with using open source. I think it just provides the end-user, specifically for us small, medium business providers of services, the flexibility we need at the right cost to provide them a higher-end, almost enterprise-type service. 

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

I've used this solution for about a year. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have all sorts of users. We have admins, we have the finance guys, and we have salespeople using it. We created a captive portal for our teams as well as a guest portal. So in general, we are more or less happy.

Right now, I use it not only for intrusion detection but also for ETLs. We are a telephony integrator. We use it for applications and radius, etc. I use it as much more than a firewall. I use it for telephony applications as a certificate authority. 

Well, we do have the versatility of a fully functional firewall at practically no cost impact... So its a good investment for us in terms of the time spent on it... Most of all, we can see where our Internet etc can be well managed from the real time graphs that we see...

It's quite an awesome product with so many good things packed into it. I am happy with the EPLS, the radius, and I am happy with the captive portal. All in all, it's a good product. And considering that I get it for paying nothing, it's really worth the time invested in it.

As I said, the product is fantastic. It could use a little bit of improvement in the reporting — the reporting is virtually non-existent. Something like a reporting module would be a benefit. Otherwise, in terms of the performance, at least for my organization, I don't see much of a problem.

By this, I mean that we cant generate reports of trends etc that could be exported out of PFSense in terms of a PDF etc to see how the firewall is functioning...

Though I must say that the work around for this could be to use the pfsense zabbix plugin and integrate to a Zabbix platform and then use the Zabbix reporting capabilities to get the required reports... Not much of an effort for the technically sound persons but definitely not in the scope of those from a non technical perspective... 

I have been using this solution for roughly 10 months. I started with version 2.4, but about four days ago, I upgraded to version 2.5. It's been a good product so far.

Stability-wise, it's fine. I've only experienced one issue in the last 10 months. But in general, I am happy with it. Scalability-wise, as I said, our organization is just about 10 to 15 people, so we have not had much of a problem. I can't comment on how it would scale up with hundreds of VLANs and tens of thousands of people operating on it. But in general, for a small organization, I think it's very stable.

As we are in SMB, I cant comment on big traffic situations but for a small organization like ours (10 to 20 users) and with various integrations that we need (e.g., OpenVPN, WireGuard, LDAP authentications, Tens of VLANS, Captive portal, DHCP Relay, EAP-TLS, IDS, Adblocks etc.) We are ok with it...

I think the documentation is good enough because I've never had the need to contact technical support. I just use Google to get the information that I need.

We used to use Fortinet in our office in Dubai. But where I am right now, I thought an open-source was the option for me because I'm very involved in open-source projects. It came down to pfSense and OPNsense — the first one we downloaded was pfSense and I stuck by it.

The initial setup was straightforward. I come from the IT industry, so I had no issues. Within 20 minutes, I had it up and running.

I implemented it myself.

Too early to comment... Though all I needed to invest was a small desktop and ofcourse, time and effort to configure it... 

Well, its opensource... So for the tech-minded, its not so difficult but yes, the configuration is understandable for those with good prior firewall knowledge... 

If you can get it working, its great... But yes, thats the first part... Get it working... 

Oncw working, all licenses etc are not a problem as it is opensource... So no restrictions there... so far...

I did use Sophos-XG free but I stick to pfsense as it is free and open source...

I would recommend pfSense for the simple reason that it's open-source and it's free. Anything for free is good. I personally got much more out of it than I expected. I never expected this product to be so worth the time. It's a good product. For my needs at least.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. I have not used it for thousands of users, but for our usage, for an SMB organization, I would give it a rating of eight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We have one Head Office and two main offices and other small branches. We want to secure our network from external and internal threats and block all unnecessary ports. We want to create a WAN with firewalls installed at all other offices and branches to connect to Head Office directly.

Overall, our experience with pfSense has been good. We're satisfied with what we're doing, but we have to move forward. It's covering what we require now, but maybe we might need something else in the future. For example, we are implementing ISO 2701, and the regulators could demand something else for compliance if they conduct an audit. And if we're following the policies required by ISO 2701 best practices, then perhaps we need to implement new hardware too because we can't do everything with our existing hardware infrastructure. 

For instance, say I want to block USB access, but I don't have the software. Currently, we use our antivirus software, which is a proper endpoint management tool. We can use it to modify the Windows registry and block everything, I can do whatever I want with the PC on the endpoints. We need to have that, but not everything works without the hardware infrastructure. 

The GUI is easy to understand. 

We had one issue with hardware support. The department head who was managing the solution became the director of the company, but he still has administrator access. And usually, whenever a WAN goes down, we always have a backup, but the hardware doesn't support more than one WAN. And then, if he wants to switch, he doesn't know how to reconfigure it. So we have to wait for the ISP to resume their services, which is not professional.

Also, the GUI is helpful, but it's not user-friendly. It's complicated. It should be more intuitive for the average user and have an excellent graphical view. Of course, the user will typically know about network administration, but it still should be easy to understand. A user should be able to find the feature they're looking for easily, but pfSense isn't so good in that sense.

We're using a flavor of pfSense. It's called XNET. It's a flavor of the pfSense main pfSense build because it's open-source, but it's basically similar to the pfSense build, and we've been using it since 2008.

Not very stable.

Scalable but only if one has expertise of open source configuration of software such as pfsense.

Customer support for any open source product is mostly based on the individuals who have expert knowledge while otherwise we have to resort to other internet sources.

I've used TMG by Microsoft, and it's much easier to manage domains and websites. For example, pfSense has IP-based blocking, but websites like YouTube and Facebook keep using different IPs. TMG blocks the actual domain name. That is one downside to pfSense I've noticed as a basic user.

It was complex and done by the vendor.

We only paid for the hardware and savings were quite high.

This is a good option. If a vendor is trying to sell Fortinet and Sangfor, but the customer's requirements are basic, they'll have a hard time convincing someone who believes in free, open-source software that pfSense is not suitable for them. The only cost is the hardware. But pfSense doesn't have after-sales support or some of the other features you might find in a commercial solution. 

I've heard that Fortinet is slightly more expensive than Sangfor. Then again, if Sangfor comes into the picture, maybe you would consider Sangfor.

I rate pfSense six out of 10. We want a product that has at least two WANs as well as fault tolerance or load balancing features, which pfSense also has, but we don't have the hardware or support. That's why we need to switch. However, if cost is a big issue, then I recommend pfSense for customers who can't afford a paid hardware and software solution. That was our issue because we're a government company, so our assets belong to the government. We have to think about where we want to spend money because it's the taxpayers' money. If your management doesn't understand the need to invest in IT, then you can consider this alternative.

I mostly use basic firewall services like blocking unwanted traffic and I use the geolocation tools to predict where potential attacks could come from. That's the main purpose, to protect our business network using pfSense.

Within our organization, with a single installation, about 500 users are covered.

The flexibility of adding new kinds of services without spending any money can't be beaten. We can compare services like IP blocking, blacklisting and DNS blocking, content filtering, and even deep packet inspection with other larger enterprise firewalls.

The interface is not very shiny and attractive. Most of the people that use pfSense are highly skilled, so they don't even bother to go the extra mile when it comes to configuration or any protection mechanisms. With other firewalls, with just one click or with the assistance of a wizard, the service is already configured. With pfSense, you have to have some time to do your own research regarding how to fine-tune it. If that could be improved, then life would be much easier. This would help any entry-level users to adapt to the platform. 

Netgate, the mother organization that manages the pfSense platform, should offer organized security feeds for its users so that they can avoid configuring multiple types of feeds in multiple locations. That could generate extra revenue for the company, too.

We have been using pfSense for five years.

That's the fun part. It's completely reliable in terms of resources that it needs to run. In terms of stability, once it's configured and properly tuned, it will do its job. Still, with firewalls these days, you can't simply configure and forget — it's not like that. You have to look into it every day or every once in a while and if any new traits or new protection mechanisms need to be built, upgraded, or re-tuned, you have to do that. Otherwise, the platform is rock solid. It doesn't fail.

The expandability and the high availability configuration of the system are good.

With pfSense, we've never had to send an email to a Netgate official support organization. We follow the forum discussion — the community. We'd ask an expert in the community. That's how we deal with any issues.

One of our clients wants to switch from FortiGate to another comparable solution because FortiGate is not stable when it comes to pricing. Over the past three years, they've increased their pricing to almost double. For this reason, our client wants to explore some other options which will be more predictable in terms of costs.

It's definitely complex compared to other firewalls because you have to configure everything, read a lot of documents, and following a lot of formulas and templates. Everyone has to develop their own recipes to work with. There is no proper way forward.

That is another fun part of this solution. There is no license. You don't have to pay anything. It's completely free. The one thing that you can buy is a security feed like an IP feed or a DNS feed. This kind of thing can be easily bought, but if you have the passion and expertise, you can arrange all of these types of feeds for free. It may be slightly different between how frequently those feeds are updated compared to the paid version. Sometimes, it lags behind for 24 hours or 12 hours, but it works.

We are really happy with the system performance, overall, but it depends. For example, right now we have a client who is trying to switch from FortiGate to another solution that is less costly. We recommended and talked with them about pfSense, but despite it being a cheaper and really rock-solid solution with good performance, they were not comfortable using open source. We also offered them Sophos, SonicWall, and Palo Alto — they finally chose SonicWall. I don't know why. It completely depends on the client. 

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. This is definitely one of the most powerful firewalls for peace of mind. The fact is, as long as you are aware of the challenges that you have to face when implementing and managing the firewall, day-to-day, then this could be the best option for you.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.