Netgate pfSense Reviews

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 have three firewalls running my entire county and 11 smaller versions of the firewalls doing OpenVPN tunnels to my remote sites through StarLink. 

PfSense has been highly flexible, and it's worked out great for us for the most part. The Plus version has support, which we will pay for since it is our edge firewall. I have not had an issue with adding features.

We're doing a lot of OpenVPN tunnels, and some of the fields in the OpenVPN setup on the server side do not lend themselves to multiple sites. It's kind of ugly. It's a big list of allowed IP addresses. I'd much rather see that via the table individually. 

The individual firewalls have a single pane of glass view, but we have so many of them. You need to log into each to manage them.

 I'm officially about two years into using pfSense and one year in production.

I have not had any crashes happen. 

Overall, I've been happy with these firewalls.

I rate Netgate support eight out of 10. They were highly responsive. It was strictly email support. I didn't buy phone support.

We were running a Sophos firewall as the edge router of everything we did, and it wasn't meeting our expectations. I've used Cisco firewalls for most of my career. The Sophos firewall was underpowered and overburdened. It was constantly causing issues, such as filling up the logs and crashing the firewall in the middle of the day. I have not had that issue with the pfSense.

It was harder to order them than it was to deploy them. As a county government, we ran into purchasing issues, but we ultimately managed to make it happen. It took us about three months to deploy all of them. After deployment, you need to update the firewall codes and back it up. That's pretty typical.

PfSense was quite a bit less expensive than some other alternatives, and it's worked as well as we could hope. We have three 1500s and 11 of the 4100s. The total cost of ownership has been pretty beneficial.

We looked at some other options. I'm a Cisco guy, but pfSense firewalls provide more bang for your buck. 

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. 

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.

We deploy the pfSense firewall to our customers' networks.

The solution provides customers with reliability and additional security.

The interface is very good. The configuration options are excellent. All of its capabilities are quite useful. It's more capable than what we need it for. I like having the ability to have additional capabilities compared to others.

pfSense's flexibility is great. I would rate it pretty high based on that.

We immediately witnessed the benefits of pfSense.

The IPS intrusion protection system helps prevent data loss. It works really well. It's a little bit manual process, however, it works really well overall.

pfSense provides high availability to help minimize downtime. They all have built-in high availability, which fails over to another box.

The solution provides visibility that enables users to make data-driven decisions. That said, that's a capability that we really don't need due to how small our customers are.

The visibility in pfSense helps to optimize performance. Just being able to see network traffic and the load on the firewall on the box, or the response times from packets going back and forth is helpful. There is a lot of visibility into network performance.

pfSense does not provide a single pane of glass type of management. That's one of the biggest downfalls. We take care of more than 60 customers, so it would be nice to have the ability to have all of the pfSense boxes that we deploy under one pane of glass so we can manage them centrally. 

I've used the solution for two years. 

I've had no issues with stability; I'd rate it ten out of ten. 

While we do not scale the solution, I can see it being very scalable. 

Technical support is of excellent quality, and they have fast response times. 

Positive

We've never used any alternative to pfSense.

We're buying the machines from Netgate. It's very easy to deploy. I'd rate the ease of implementation as eight out of ten. Even if someone didn't have much experience with pfSense, it would be pretty easy.

It's low maintenance; we may only need to worry about an occasional firmware update. 

I did not use an integrator or consultant during the implementation. I handled the process myself. 

The total cost of ownership is very good. It's low maintenance. Once you get it up and running, you really don't have to touch it. It's very favorable to have the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities.

The pricing is excellent. 

We're an end-user.

We use the pfSense Plus version. 

I'd rate pfSense nine out of ten.

New users should be aware that it is more complex than just a consumer-grade product. Users need to be prepared for a lot of features that they might not understand or know how to implement at first. Check your resources in preparation.

We use pfSense for IT security and load balancing the internet traffic across our three lines. We also use a package available in pfSense called pfBlocker that blocks some DNS records. For example, it doesn't allow ads to appear on the website. We have a site-to-site VPN with our different sites. 

The benefits from pfSense were immediate. We tested pfSense on a third-party machine, and soon after, we purchased a Netgate machine. PfSense prevents data loss by blocking malicious sites or apps with pfBlocker and the Suricata package, which acts as an IPS. 

PfSense has multiple WAN ports, helping to reduce downtime. We can set multiple Internet lines. If one line has an issue, we can still access the Internet from the other or communicate with the other sites. We also have a high availability feature with pfSense. For example, if we have two or three pfSense devices, we can have high availability. If one goes down, we can still work with the other one.

The visibility that pfSense has enables us to make data-driven decisions. From the logs, we can see blocked or allowed traffic. We generally see what goes into the firewall and change the rules or configuration. 

From the dashboard, we can see the utilization and how our lines behave during working hours. We can see if we need a higher-performance device, a line upgrade, or a feature.

I like pfBlocker and the ability to install more packages from the pfSense console. It's easy to add features, but you can check the user communities and videos if you encounter any difficulties. You have the flexibility to choose VPNs with WireGuard or OpenVPN and make firewall rules. It's easy to create a group with multiple IPs, hostnames, or areas and create a rule for that group.

You can make your own configurations on every module and create custom packages, which makes it more flexible. The dashboard is customizable, so you can create your dashboard based on what you would like to see and have all the data there on the dashboard. You can start and stop everything on the dashboard. 

PfSense could better utilize the interface and dashboard and include some packages in the built-in solution. For example, pfSense is sharing some other packages. You have to download and configure them within the package manager of pfSense. Some of those important ones, like the IPS and the monitor, could be installed on the solution's image and configured.

I have used pfSense for four years in business and at home.

I didn't notice any performance issues. 

pfSense is scalable.

I rate Netgate support nine out of 10. I have contacted them twice in the last six months, and they responded and resolved my issue quickly. 

Positive

We used UniFi UDM, Hillstone, and OPNsense, which is similar to pfSense.

Deploying pfSense is straightforward. It took about an hour to install and configure. After deployment, the only maintenance required is periodically checking for new updates or security fixes. 

pfSense's price is excellent and similar to its competitors. It has a low total cost of ownership for all these features. 

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. 

We are a reseller. We resell the product to our customers as we are an MSP. We use it for various different verticals, from manufacturing to schools to typical offices. That is mainly the use of this solution.

There are a lot of limitations with competitors like WatchGuard and SonicWall where there are a lot of costs for licenses to utilize their products. We felt that by going to pfSense, we have a little bit more freedom. We can use certain features without having to pay exorbitant costs for licensing. It is better for the small to medium-sized customers.

They are the most flexible, for sure. In my experience, it is quite easy to add features to pfSense and configure them. There is a lot of support from the local community. Because it is an open-community-built platform, there is a lot of support out there. Adding features and configuring them seems to be quite simple from my experience so far.

There is an overall performance increase. The hardware is much more performance-driven. The constant upgrades certainly make it easier to keep up with the evolving environment. The community-driven platform certainly helps to ensure that things are kept current.

pfSense gives us a single pane of glass management. There is a user interface and also the command line. The user interface is very friendly and easy to navigate. The single pane of glass management certainly increases productivity. The ability to look at one single pane of glass, add different widgets, and see things at a glance certainly helps to cut down the time of looking for certain statuses or things like that. It makes things more efficient.

We deal with pfSense Plus in a few cases. It can help minimize downtime. We have not experienced it in any sort of live environment, but I am confident that it would.

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

It optimizes performance, and in most cases, it affects operations and makes things more efficient. Efficiency means money.

The ability to utilize the features instead of having to pay a license fee for every single thing that you want to use on a firewall is valuable. A lot of other companies give you a firewall out of the box that has very basic functionality, whereas pfSense gives you all the good features, and if you want to have more advanced features, you can pay a fee. You are able to use a lot of the features that you cannot use on other products. That is the best thing.

It is very good from a troubleshooting perspective. Things like logging are very good. We have been using these firewalls with filtering very successfully, and VPN has been very successful on them. We have not had any issues with that.

One thing that stuck out to me was the move to use plastic chassis on the Netgate devices or products. They are moving away from using metal chassis, and I find that the plastic seems to get hotter than the metal. Other than that, they are such great devices. They always seem to have all the cool things and bells and whistles.

One thing I would like to see Netgate do is to have a cloud-based management portal, similar to SonicWall, WatchGuard, Ubiquiti, etc. With all these platforms, you create an account, and you have a way to cloud-manage these products. Currently, one of the challenges that we face is not being able to manage those things from a centralized platform. It has always been one thing I have dreamt of for Netgate. That is the only place where it falls short. Apart from that, they are far superior in building, keeping up with the times, and keeping things current.

It has been probably eight or nine years.

A couple of times we have had some strange issues that have been unexplainable, but overall, it is stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability.

It is scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for scalability.

They have been fantastic. I have never had an issue, and it has always been very good. They are a highly intelligent and very resourceful team. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We have used everything, such as Cisco, SonicWall, and WatchGuard. You name the flavor. We have used them all, and Netgate is definitely a much better product than those. It also depends on the use cases. 

It has been very straightforward to very complex. We have set up entire data centers run by Netgate devices to small offices using a 2100. We have gone from the most complex to the least complex. We have seen everything in between.

Its deployment is a matter of hours. Our clients are small to medium size. We have about ten people working with pfSense.

It requires general maintenance. We have to keep up with firmware and updates. From a physical perspective, there is no maintenance.

It is very cost-effective. There is 100% ROI.

They are on the higher end, but you do not get stuck with spending thousands of dollars every year. You do not have recurring license costs to have people use a simple feature like VPN. That makes it more cost-effective in the long term. There is a very good price point. No one ever complained, and I have not ever thought that they were overpriced. That is for sure.

If you are looking to deploy a product that is reliable and high-performing and that is going to be cost-effective for yourself or your customer in the long term, you are doing the right thing by looking at Netgate.

I would rate Netgate pfSense a ten out of ten.

I use pfSense as our primary firewall and router. We use several functions of pfSense, including the OpenVPN capabilities for mobile VPN and pfBlocker for DNS blocklisting. We also use Snort for IPS capabilities. 

The solution helped us secure the perimeter against vulnerabilities. I'm confident in the team's ability to keep things updated and all the security holes patched. It also has security add-ons like IDS, IPS, etc. We realized the benefits immediately.

My favorite thing about pfSense is its overall stability of the product. It's rock solid and low maintenance. I like that aspect. It doesn't cost much, and it's feature-rich, including mobile VPN, pfBlocker, and IPS. You have the flexibility to deploy it as bare metal or VM. 

It's very easy to add features to pfSense and to configure them. The solution's management page offers a single pane of glass view. You can clearly see the various features on the main page, and it isn't difficult to drill down into the other sections for more details. 

I can't say which features Plus provides that the community edition doesn't. I only knew that the Plus edition was the path forward. I was previously on a community edition for many years, but I've been on the Plus edition for at least a couple of years now.

One area of improvement would be better communication. They kind of left a lot of people in the dark and misled them about the pfSense Plus Edition. I feel like they automatically switched people over and then followed that up with a required subscription model. That aggravated a lot of customers, including me, but I stuck with it regardless.

I have used pfSense for nearly a decade.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for reliability. 

pfSense is highly scalable. The only limitation is the hardware you have behind it. As long as you can upgrade your hardware when you scale, pfSense will be able to support it. 

I rate pfSense support nine out of 10. I've typically gotten all the answers I sought when needed. They are highly responsive. I don't think I've ever had to wait more than an hour to get a reply. 

Positive

I wasn't involved in deploying pfSense. I maintain an existing one. For maintenance, you just need to periodically update to the latest version of pfSense Plus and maintain the different rulesets, such as firewall, IPS, and pfBlocker rules. 

The total cost of ownership of pfSense is rather low. After the recent subscription change, it doesn't cost us more than a couple hundred bucks a year. The only other thing I have to pay for is the business Snort license for the IDaaS IPS functionality. 

I rate pfSense nine out of 10. I recommend doing a white box deployment because it's easier on the hardware. I tried pfSense on a Netgate appliance and wasn't impressed with the performance compared to the white box I already had in place. I suggest starting with a spare server you have — Dell, HP, etc. 

Our most common use cases are for our corporate firewalls, and currently, I'm using it as our school firewall. So it's our perimeter firewall. So, we're running three firewalls on our network. 

So we have separate networks each because we have, like, different use cases. So we're running three at the moment.

We've been running it for six years now, and so far, it's been good.

Netgate pfSense has been utilized to create and manage VPNs within our organization. So we're running pfSense with VPN on one of our private cloud providers. So we're using IPSec VPN on that.

For everyday tasks, we just get alerts. It's anything that's suspicious, including from our Netgate. So, it's part of how we maintain cybersecurity in our school. This is working alongside our endpoint security solution. 

We were using an open-source endpoint solution for that. So we're integrating that with the one we have on pfSense. 

The ease of use. Like, it's easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise. For me, it's quite easy and friendly to use.

We have a set of rules so that it can manage all of our rules. We have a complex network here in our school. We have a lot of rules running, so it's really easy to match all of those rules using pfSense.

Integrating pfSense with other products was a bit tedious at first. We researched and tested for about a month, so it was not too hard but not instant.

For the third-party packages, I'd rather have it built-in, like a core feature of pfSense, part of the core model. This feature of pfSense would be great, instead of relying on a third-party module.

I have been using it for six years. 

It's about 95% stable, not perfect, but quite reliable.

If I needed to scale it and merge our pfSense machines into one, I'd prefer a dedicated hardware appliance instead of running multiple x86 servers on the firewall.

We have around 4,000 endpoints. 

I reached out to support for an unusual CPU usage issue after an upgrade. They were responsive, and even though I ultimately found a solution, they were helpful in diagnosing.

Positive

We used Fortinet. We opted for pfSense because of budget limitations. pfSense was a more affordable solution for our requirements.

pfSense is easier to manage and offers modularity for features. With FortiGate, everything is there, but we might not need everything, and too many features can be challenging.

The initial setup is very straightforward and intuitive. 

We use the pfSense software directly and install it on our rack servers. So, we're adding three instances of that.

I handle all the deployment processes. I am the core manager for the entire infrastructure, so I manage and deploy everything.

I consider how many users and gigabytes we expect on the network and try it on a test network first to validate before actual deployment.

Just my core team members manage the whole deployment, so that's enough for us.

Migrating the old one to the new one took around a month because we have many rules, and the new Netgate was quite different.

From the maintenance perspective, it is not difficult at all. 

While configuring or maintaining pfSense, we had high CPU usage on one firewall, but the GPAC subscription provided a good response. The support team was helpful, and we resolved it in a few hours. So, we had good support because of the support subscription. 

We just have the yearly support subscription.

I just found pfSense online. I just tried it out on a home lab and found it worked well enough for us. So, just started out, like, searching online and responded and tried it.

I would advise you to try to estimate your network first and do a test network just to have a proof of concept of what you want to run and check the routes you want to run against your network, making sure that your requirements are valid before deploying it.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.