Netgate pfSense Reviews

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. 

I have used Netgate pfSense for a range of purposes. Initially, I employed it for VPN connections, mainly for personal and professional use. I also relied on it to maintain network equipment in a professional context. In the professional sphere, I have experience with both pfSense and Juniper, but eventually, I decided to phase out Juniper due to its high costs, especially for updates and the addition of new functionalities. pfSense's cost-effectiveness and the flexibility to transition to new hardware while retaining configurations made it a preferred choice. pfSense also stands out in terms of its rapid algorithm evolution compared to competitors like Juniper. Its scalability is another advantage, where adding a new box or reconfiguring can boost the firewall's capacity.

On a personal note, I use Netgate pfSense to connect to my equipment at the data center. Currently, I have a highly available installation that requires two instances of pfSense. While I considered pfSense for this setup, I had to assess whether OpenSense might offer better features for future requirements before delving deeper into pfSense.

It's worth noting that Netgate pfSense's performance is independent of the hardware it runs on. As I mentioned earlier, its scalability is a strong point. Most functions are readily available, and additional features can be obtained by downloading and installing plugins, which are generally free. When you compare this to the alternative of purchasing a firewall from a different supplier, you'll find that the latter option typically doubles the cost of the firewall itself. This cost increase is often attributed to additional licenses for deep inspection and similar functionalities. While configuring pfSense may require more time and effort upfront, the long-term cost savings make it a more cost-effective choice.   

One concern I have with Netgate pfSense is related to packet filtering. Specifically, issues can arise with certain functionalities like GP, and, at times, there may be bugs. When creating IP lists, I've noticed that synchronization doesn't always function correctly. While it's not entirely dysfunctional, troubleshooting these synchronization problems can be quite challenging.

I have been using Netgate pfSense since 2015-16.

I've experienced certain issues with Netgate pfSense in the past, particularly with the previous version, which was 2.5. It posed several problems. However, the current version appears to be more stable. Nonetheless, I still encounter troubleshooting challenges. For instance, there is an issue where it initially blocks an IP range but releases it after ten minutes. This behavior is somewhat peculiar, and it pertains to IP filtering.

The support for Netgate pfSense mainly comes from online forums. These forums are populated by a significant number of individuals who are knowledgeable in pfSense and its related areas, making it a valuable resource.

The choice of whether to use Netgate pfSense often depends on the company's preferences. In some cases, particularly in Switzerland, there is a strong preference for open source solutions. This choice is sometimes motivated by the desire for open source alternatives and can also be related to cost considerations.

The Initial setup is very easy.

Netgate pfSense is a cost-effective option. If you're not using a VPN, you can acquire a decent embedded PC for around a hundred dollars and install pfSense on it, effectively creating a robust firewall solution. With this setup, you can achieve a throughput of two hundred to three hundred megabits per second without any issues, provided you're handling relatively simple rules. The level of performance depends on the specific requirements and tasks.

If you're considering using Netgate pfSense for the first time, I would recommend giving it a try. It's relatively easy to set up and use, especially if you have some prior knowledge of network and IT work. The user manual provides helpful guidance, and the basic configuration is straightforward. Just ensure you pay attention to the hardware requirements to make the most of it.

It can be rated as an eight for simplicity. However, as you progress and introduce complexities, such as enabling deep packet inspection, adding extra features, or installing multiple plugins, the configuration can become more intricate. I encountered some issues with iOS in version 2.5, but they are expected to be resolved or have been resolved.

I use pfSense for my home network firewall. I also manage two Cloud platforms that use it. 

Netgate pfSense is flexible allowing for modifications to meet our needs.

With my strong security background and experience managing pfSense, adding and configuring new features is a breeze. While some might encounter challenges, my expertise allows me to navigate them with ease.

pfSense impressed me with its ease of deployment and low maintenance. It excels in protection and firewall functionality and offers a wide range of add-ins to further customize my network. After considering alternatives like OPNsense and Untangle, pfSense emerged as the perfect fit for my needs.

The single pane of glass provided by pfSense makes it easier to determine issues related to attacks and what is being blocked. I can see live logging of the firewalls and what rules apply to what.

pfSense does a good job helping prevent data loss using Snort which identifies and blocks suspicious traffic before it enters our network.

pfSense Plus offers a visibility feature that helps me optimize network performance. The dashboard displays clear traffic graphs and device load information, and I can customize it to show exactly what I need.

The total cost of ownership is extremely reasonable. pfSense is a good option, especially for people conscious of recurring expenses.

The most valuable features of pfSense are the high availability that easily allows failover to a backup unit and the Snort integration with pfSense and WireGuard.

Netgate pfSense can improve by adding a different OS layer other than FreeBSD.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years. 

Netgate pfSense has been stable.

pfSense's scalability is highly dependent on the hardware you choose, but despite this, it offers a strong ability to handle increased network demands overall.

In addition to pfSense, I have used OPNsense, WatchGuard, and Cisco. The WatchGuard rules were more straightforward than pfSense. New pfSense users might find deciding between floating and interface rules for specific scenarios confusing.

The installation is easy for those who are comfortable with command-line interfaces. It is quick and straightforward but they have to be careful when assigning the internal or external net because that can be challenging for some.

One person is enough to deploy.   

Netgate pfSense is competitively priced. The 4100 box is a good box for the price.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

Before deploying pfSense in your lab, I recommend checking the pfSense forums to learn about any potential issues or considerations other users have encountered.

I primarily used the solution to replace Cisco, which was horrible. I wanted something super simple. We needed something that would make the change process within my network easier.

I started with a small trial when I wanted to replace my Cisco switches. I liked that this was open source and I was able to test a few things. The capabilities of configuration made it so that I didn't have to test other options and I could translate my configuration the way I wanted to.

It's easy to configure segments in a network and the routing is good. 

It is super robust. The flexibility is great. It's the main reason I switched off of Cisco. Everything is very intuitive.

I have a pretty complex network. With this, I can do some segmenting. I can have specific firewall rules to make my network as secure as possible.

It's so easy to use. I use the VPN features a lot. It's great.

It's simple to add features. There's lots of documentation and Youtube guides to help you. I did not need specialized training thanks to this knowledge base. As long as you have a background in networking, it's pretty straightforward.

You can add other software packages to pfSense.

Between the free and paid versions, I do not see something that would make one better than the other. However, I bought the pfSense appliance to ensure I had a nice piece of hardware to save and protect my network.

pfSense does provide good visibility into my network so that I can make data-driven decisions. If I need to troubleshoot anything, I can go and look at the data, the statistics, and the graphs. I don't do this daily; I do it only if I notice strange behavior. 

It helps us optimize performance - especially in terms of internet use.

While the software is great, they could work on improving the hardware. The interface is a little bit sluggish. When I installed it on a random computer, the performance was pretty crisp. However, on the device itself, it's slower. I'd like to see them decrease storage and increase speed. With storage, you can always add more. However, you cannot make CPUs faster. 

I've used the solution since September 2022.

I've never experienced any crashes. It's quite stable. 

It's a pretty beefy appliance. That said, thus far, I have no need to scale. At the time, I went with the biggest offering they had in terms of appliance size. 

I've only contacted technical support in order to get a device replacement. I've never experienced any issues. 

I previously used Cisco. It was difficult.

The initial setup is moderately easy. I struggled a bit. It's a bit tricky at first.  However, within a couple of months, I had a really good setup. Now, it's working flawlessly. The deployment took a few months. The first month was a lot of troubleshooting. By the second month, I was fine-tuning. By the third month, it was completely up and running. 

There isn't too much maintenance. The device is almost maintenance-free. Every once in a while, there are updates. The backup is automatic after configuration. I don't have to worry about that.

I handled the setup by myself. 

The pricing is good. I'm not locked into any kind of subscription. Since I bought the appliance, I have it until it breaks. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

I wouldn't recommend pfSense to somebody who has no limited network. While pfSense, for me, was pretty easy to set up, it does have so many features that you could easily get confused. I would recommend it to anybody with experience as a network engineer, not just a beginner. 

We have a tiny business that uses pfSense to create a secure VPN between our two locations. 

It's a reliable platform. We also value pfSense's security features because we have to comply with PCI for credit card payments. We need to be confident that we'll have the security. PfSense offers that.

We realized the benefits of pfSense almost immediately. I read about a company using it and thought it would be the most secure thing. It's a bit daunting at first because you have to configure it. However, they create ISP versions, so you can leave those alone and not configure them. This does the whole thing in one box, whereas, with the ISP thing, you have to think about how many different appliances you'll need to make it work.

I like how easy it is to access VPNs and stuff like that. It's so simple to set up a site-to-site VPN. The solution is flexible enough to do just about anything.  It's super easy to configure the features as long as you have the details you need, or you can build out stuff if it lacks what you're after because it has a plugin architecture.

It depends on how you run it, but pfSense can help you prevent data loss. Still, it's more about preventing people from getting in and having the confidence that you won't be compromised. And if you need those extra features, you can always add them and all those things that can monitor what's happening in your website or organization.

The web interface allows you to see bandwidth, how things connect, and much more. PfSense Plus prevents downtime. It has a feature that records everything you do so that if a unit fails, you can swap it out and enter your details, and then it loads your configuration on a new device. PeerSpot Plus provides visibility that enables data-driven decisions. You can set it up to do that if you want it. 

They could always make pfSense slightly more user-friendly and modernize the interface a little. 

I have used pfSense since 2015, so it's been around nine years.

I've never seen pfSense crash.

It's at the scale that I need it, but you can certainly scale it up to the enterprise level if you want to have a better product. It depends on the hardware. 

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. I only contacted them once. It was very quick and efficient. I had a sensible solution within five minutes. I couldn't imagine having better support.

Positive

I used some Netgear hardware, but I don't remember the model because it was eight years ago. When I switched to pfSense, I stuck with it because it works reliably. 

Deploying pfSense was pretty easy. I'm an IT guy, so I did it myself. After deployment, you need to do some routine maintenance, like upgrading occasionally and checking your file logs. Apart from that, it does everything for you.

They have a free community version and a paid version. The free version works if you are a home user who needs a fixed cost, but that's not my use case. 

I rate Netgate pfSense 10 out of 10. I can't think of a way to make it better. Before deploying pfSense, prepare your area and your network. Understand your entire network and what you want to do before you start doing anything then follow the documentation. 

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.

Positive

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.

Most of my clients want to use it as a firewall. There are two things that they're looking for. Number one is bandwidth management so that if there are multiple links, they can share bandwidth for their staff. The other important aspect that has come up recently is for IDS and IPS.

Currently, for me, the most valuable feature is the implementation of pfBlockerNG. The community behind pfSense is really strong. 

In terms of the features, the simplicity of the installation is a significant advantage. Out of the box, I am ready to start using pfSense after installation, which is very important. It allows minimal downtime before integration, enabling use even on a weekday without users knowing there's a new firewall in place. 

The key thing I found is saving on the cost of equipment. Whether CapEx or OpEx, we appreciate this.

The user interface needs improvement. Even though it's a system that's easy to get working upon installation, the configurations are not intuitive. The interface needs to be friendlier. That's the only complaint I have about pfSense.

I have been using pfSense since 2008.

One issue is due to bugs and broken links.

I have not had the chance to experience Netgate technical support, because most of the time I have been able to sort out the issues with forums.

Positive

Before Netgate, I used a lot of MikroTik. In comparison, pfSense is more robust in terms of the feature set. The open form of the GPL system makes it better than MikroTik.

The steps to implement involve aligning with the key aspects I am going to implement, knowing what they already have running, and what needs to be mirrored and improved. I usually have it pre-installed, tested, and then deployed.

I have a team. There are around three of us, and we do this together.

I would recommend it a lot because it's a proper firewall, and there are no issues apart from the interface and broken links. It's very easy to recommend pfSense without even going through the POC stage. For me, pfSense is a ten out of ten.

We use it for home solutions and 200+ enterprises. We use it to address routing issues (NATing issues through VPNs).

Our environment consists of many enterprises with many subnets.

pfSense makes everything easier compared to Cisco or Fortinet.

Policy-based firewall rules are the most valuable feature because every other brand it is 200% more complicated to accomplish the same operation.

The flexibility is easy. We can implant in small businesses for less than 500 CAD and in 5k users enterprises. The only part that needs to be improved is the hardware, everything else is out of the box.

I would rate the ease of adding features a ten out of ten. With telecom knowledge, the product is crystal clear easy.

Evaluation and contracting could be improved. 

I have been using pfSense since 2016.

The scalability is good, they should offer filtration or a next-gen firewall.

From my experience, their support is very quick. 

Positive

I haven't evaluated any solutions since 2016. With pfSense you get the bang for your buck. pfSense routing, VPN, policy rules, NAT forwarding, everything is better.

The initial setup is straightforward. It was easy. We have 16 years of experience. I did the deployment, it only required one person. 

It is cheaper than other options. 

I would rate it a 9.5 out of 10. My advice would be to take the time to do an online course if you find using the solution a bit hard. It is worth it.