Netgate pfSense Reviews

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.

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. 

We primarily use the solution for firewalling, site-to-site VPNs, and VPN management.

We largely needed a good firewall solution. We wanted to find a suitable firewall for our company size and what we're doing with it.

It's open-source and everything is available to me without having to pay subscription fees. 

The support with NetGate probably is the most value I've seen from it. They've been really, really helpful. The open-source nature of pfSense, paired with the amount of support we receive, has been great.

The flexibility is great. It does everything I need it to do. The amount of open apps for it is extensive. I was able to help track some networking issues using the pfSense to scan the network.

It's significantly easier than expected to configure the solution and simple to handle add-ons.

pfSense can help prevent data loss. In our environment, things are fairly strict. However, it makes it easy to manage and configure the firewall and handle inter-VLAN routing and firewalls between them.

We do have access to a single pane of glass management. It's easy to review traffic, usage between VLANs, threat monitoring, and user connectivity. I'd have to monitor items separately without this single pane which would make monitoring difficult. 

We do use pfSense Plus. It provides us with the features we need to minimize downtime. The updates and everything that comes with it have been great.

The visibility provided allows us to make data-driven decisions. The modules I have access to for network monitoring and management have been very helpful.

We've been able to optimize performance. With NetGate support, I've been able to utilize traffic shaping and performance optimizers. 

I'd like to see it become more of a next-gen firewall or deep packet inspection, however, I'm very happy with the way it is as of now. 

I've used the solution personally for about two years. My company has been using it for about eight years now.

The stability is very good. 

We have two locations. I have yet to uncover any scalability limitations. 

Support is quick to respond. For the amount we pay a year, the support has paid for itself. I'm very happy with the level of support we get. 

Positive

I do have experience with Meraki and NetGate devices. I've used FortiGate devices in the past. The expense and support were not near the quality of pfSense.

The initial setup was easy to set up and straightforward to configure. It did take a moment to learn where each tool set was. However, after that, it's really good. I handled the deployment myself. I was able to implement it within 16 hours. 

There isn't really any maintenance; it is pretty much set and forget. I do updates every three months or so and that's it. 

90% of the setup was handled in-house; I referred to NetGate support for a few items along the way. 

We do pay about $600 a year for NetGate support. pfSense is free, however, NetGate, that made the appliance, charges for a support package. I'm very happy with the quality of service that I get for the price. 

We would have paid another $7,000/year for subscription fees if we went anywhere else.

I'd recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it ten out of ten.

We use Netgate pfSense as a firewall solution for small and medium-sized businesses.

Netgate pfSense offers firewall protection, VPN access, and a range of monitoring tools.

Adding features to pfSense is easy to do through the wizard.

Netgate pfSense is well documented, and the interface is easy to use when we consult the documentation.

Netgate pfSense was recommended, so the benefits were immediate.

It provides a single wizard. Some third-party tools out there allow us to manage remotely. It also helps us optimize performance by enabling us to turn features on and off.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionality, we love pfSense's total cost of ownership. 

The most valuable features are the alerting and local monitoring.

We are a security shop. It would be very useful if we could place pfSense appliances in customer environments and remotely manage them.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for four years.

Netgate pfSense is relatively stable. It has been running for four years now without any issues.

The scalability is limited without upgrading the appliance.

The technical support offers great quality and good response times.

Positive

The initial deployment is not a plug-and-play out of the box. It takes a little bit more than that. For us, it takes ten to 20 minutes for one person to deploy one pfSense firewall.

Netgate pfSense has a great pricing model.

I would rate Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

Maintenance is required for software updates.

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.

We use pfSense as a firewall to improve our security. 

pfSense is viable and works as it's supposed to. It prevents data loss. I've used it on several networks. It's there in the background and just works. It minimizes downtime by running dual WANs and automatically switching between two connections.

pfSense is relatively easy to set up and just runs. It's easy to use. The platform is flexible. We've been able to do everything we've tried. It seems very complete. I'm not using all of the capabilities, but it does what we want to do. 

Once you find what you're looking for, it's relatively easy to add features and configure them. Google helps out. I've been able to do anything I wanted.

The learning curve is a little long.

We deployed pfSense in the last five years. 

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for stability. 

It's a small firewall and we have a small network. 

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. I've only contacted them a couple of times, and it's been fine. They've responded quickly and done the job. 

Positive

I've only used off-the-shelf routers without a truly community-built firewall product. 

My background is in IT, so the installation is relatively straightforward once you understand a few concepts, but that's normal. I got pfSense running in a day.  d

The price of pfSense is fair. We have a relatively small network, and most of the competitors are pretty expensive. 

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10. It does everything it should do.