Netgate pfSense Reviews

Our primary use case for this solution is Endpoint Advanced. I have set it up for the firewall and the open VPN connections.

It would be great to add more to security.

I know that pfSense has a lot of features, but I don't know how to configure and enable them. That is why I am looking into my support options. I am looking for better security and performance.

I have been using this solution for almost two years.

pfSense is scalable. Currently, we have almost 30 people using it in our company.

I'm currently struggling with deploying pfSense more extensively. Right now, we are not getting much support on their end. 

My opinion about pfSense's pricing is good. They are open source. 

I use pfSense for OpenVPN and DNS. 

I like pfSense's security features. 

The integration of pfSense with EPS and EDS could be better. Also, it should be easier to get reports on how many users are connecting simultaneously and how sections connect in real-time.

I've been using pfSense for about 10 years.

PfSense is stable.

PfSense is scalable.

It's easy to set up pfSense. But it generally takes two or three days, depending on the environment.

Eight out of 10

We use pfSense as a firewall in the healthcare sector, education sector, and banking sector.

pfSense is very easy to use.

It is a better firewall than others and it has better features.

They do not provide support in India.

The security could be improved.

I have been selling pfSense for 12 years.

pfSense is a very stable solution.

We have 50 customers who use this solution.

We provide local support to our customers.

It is very easy to install.

We only need one person to install and maintain this solution.

When compared with other firewalls, the price is reasonable.

There is an open-source community version that is available.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

While it is difficult for me to point to any one specific advantage of the solution in respect of the firewall, I do know that it has many benefits. For one, it is open source. 

The stability could be improved. Whenever there is an update, in spite of developments I may have made, I am required to make certain changes to the coding. 

I have been using pfSense for perhaps two or three years. 

The stability could be better. 

The solution seems to be scalable. 

The solution is easy to set up.

I develop the solution on behalf of my company. 

With my scant knowledge of networking and the firewall I would rate pfSense as an eight out of ten. 

My primary use case is for controlling incoming traffic from various countries and blocking IP addresses if necessary. I'm the company director and a user of pfSense.

A key feature is being able to block IP addresses. This is a good product and I have no issues with it.

I'd like to see some instructional videos as opposed to documentation. It would be helpful for beginners and start-up companies. 

I've been using this solution for a couple of months. 

This solution is stable.

It's worth giving this product a shot and testing it out because it's free and community based.

I would rate the community version a 10 out of 10. 

It is a stable solution. It is also easy to install and can be deployed and maintained by one team member.

pfSense has some limitations in detecting site sessions. We want to control internet usage based on sites and their content, and pfSense doesn't perform this function.

The site itself could be improved; it's not easy to find the things that you want to implement and apply.

It would be good if it had more features like Sophos does.

I've been using pfSense for two years.

It is a stable product.

The installation was easy. I was able to install it in two hours maximum. Only one person is needed for deployment and maintenance.

Currently, we don't pay for a license.

We have fifty users in our organization, and I can recommend pfSense. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at eight.

We use pfSense as a firewall and proxy server. We use it to apply different restrictions for different users from some data locations.

I mostly like all of it. Whatever we use is valuable.

There are some bias issues and some intrusions in our network that have to be addressed. So, we're thinking of changing this firewall to something like a professional hardware-enabled firewall.

I have been working with pfSense for many years now.

pfSense is a stable solution.

pfSense is a scalable solution. We have about 200 users in our company.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give pfSense a seven.

We use pfSense to protect our customers using IPS and IDS.

We are a government agency and we manage the government network. 

We complete the setup and we are protecting our customers.

The most valuable feature is that it's robust.

In terms of resources, utilization assets, CPU utilization, and a lot of memory, it's very good. 

The concurrent users are perfect for us.

The router monitoring needs improvement when compared with Sonicwall.

I would like an API that can sync to SolarWinds because we use SolarWinds for our monitoring platform. It would be great to be able to do all of the monitoring from SolarWinds instead of logging into the application to monitor it. It would be a nice feature to have.

I have been using pfSense for less than two years.

In the last two weeks, we moved a few resources to the pfSense and it's been stable. 

When compared to SonicWall there were some issues but it could be that SonicWall was doing too much. It was doing almost everything. It was doing IDS, IPS, and contextual training. It may be that it was overwhelmed.

We were using the software base, and then we bought the hardware device. We moved 12 users onto it and we are monitoring it.

Based on the documentation it would not require much to scale up or upgrade. There is no doubt that it is scalable.

Most of the support is online.

We do a lot of reading, and if there is any support or suggestions we quickly do it. 

We have not contacted them directly.  

They have a lot of resources available on the internet that will guide you in finding your way around.

We use a few different firewalls. We use SonicWall and Huawei firewall along with pfSense.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy.

We did not use an integrator. I completed it with one of my colleagues.

Looking at what it does, I think that it is fairly priced.

When we compare to SonicWall, we feel that we are getting the best with pfSense.

Depending on what they want their firewall to do for them. If it is for intrusion detection, and intrusion prevention I would recommend this solution. 

In summary, this product is good but I would like to see resources utilization (cpu, hard disk) directly on SolarWinds. A one stop shop for monitoring on SolarWinds. It would be great!

I would rate pfSense a six out of ten.

This solution can be used for a firewall, VPN, and VLAN.

The main features of this solution are customization and ease to use.

The configuration of the solution is a bit difficult.

I have been using the solution for one year.

The solution is stable.

I have found this solution to be scalable.

The technical support was good in my experience.

The installation is easy and can take approximately one day.

We did the implementation of the solution and we have five technicians available for implementation and maintenance.

My advice to those wanting to implement this solution is that if you are new to configuring this solution I would seek assistance. You most likely will have problems if you have not done it before.

I rate pfSense an eight out of ten.

I tested it for firewall, networks, and network stability and as a VPN access point.

I especially like the VPN part. It works like a charm.

I tried pfSense, and it has a big issue with file system consistency, and this is what drove me to OPNsense. The file system stability is quite a big issue for us. We have a lot of outages related to power issues, and OPNsense is much more stable on this side.

I would like it to be more stable on the file system part. It also has an issue with the ARP publishing, but it's common to BSD, and some providers experience issues with Layer 2 connectivity.

I tested pfSense for six months, but it had quite a lot of networking issues related to latency and ARP publishing. So, I immediately switched to OPNsense.

I'd like to see its stability improved. I know the BSD Kernel is more capable than what pfSense provides at this time.

It's scalable. It implements specific protocols for scalability.

The initial setup is straightforward. It took me about ten to 15 minutes to install it and maybe half an hour for configuration.

I implemented this solution.

I would recommend this solution if there are no power issues. It's stable and performs well, even on older hardware.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give pfSense a nine.