Netgate pfSense Reviews

We are using pfSense as a personal firewall for our systems and network protection.

The solution is very easy to use and configure.

I have been using pfSense for approximately five years.

The solution is stable.

I am only using the solution for personal use and have not tried to scale it.

I have not been in contact with the technical support because everything has been easy with the solution and there is clear documentation available.

I have used other firewalls, such as Cisco and Netgate.

The initial setup is very simple and the configuration is user-friendly. It took me one day for the whole process.

I did the implementation of pfSense myself. The solution does not require much maintenance, we require sometimes to reboot the system.

I am using the community version of the solution and it is priced well. There is a cost of learning how to use the solution, if it was free it would be better.

A good firewall has to be easy to install, configure, use, and fit the use case. This solution for my usage is very good.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

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.

We are using the solution for a firewall and other operations, such as traffic shaping.

The features I have found best are ease of use, GUI, and performance.

The hotspot and the portal feature in this solution are not stable for WiFi access. We use it at least once or twice every day and it crashes. Some modules can be better by improving detection and having new updates. Additionally, we have some issues with clustering and load balancing that could improve.

In a future release, they could redesign the policies because we need to write inbound and outbound simultaneous policies. They could change it to one policy, such as in FortiGate, Sophos, and Cyberoam. In these firewalls, we add rules in one way, and they add rules automatically. However, in this solution, we need to write every policy manually. 

They can improve in site-to-site tunnels with other devices, such as Cisco or FortiGate. It is not very easy to set up VPNs for site-to-site tunnels.

There have been some problems we have been facing with BGP routing that needs to be improved.

I have been using the solution for approximately two years.

The stability could improve.

Since this solution is software-based it is easy to scale. We can extend the UIs by adding some hardware, such as CPUs and memory discs. We would not be able to match this type of scalability with a hardware-based solution, for example as FortiGate.

This solution is best suited for small to midsize networks. When there is heavy traffic in larger-scale businesses it becomes less reliable.

I have used FortiGate previously and this solution is cheaper and more reliable.

The solution is easy to deploy.

The solution is free. However, you need to pay for support.

I rate pfSense a five 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.

It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good.

I have been using WireGuard VPN because it is a lot faster and more secure than an open VPN. However, in the latest version of pfSense, they have removed this feature, which is one of the main features that I need. They should include this feature.

I have been using this solution for probably ten years. As the head of IT, I have used pfSense for the French infrastructure for around ten years.

It is working fine for me. I never had any problem with this firewall.

I never had to contact their support because everything has been working fine.

I have a lot of experience with pfSense but not much with OPNsense. Both OPNsense and pfSense are very easy, but pfSense is a bit more friendly. pfSense is simple to use with a nice web interface. OPNsense is more tricky.

OPNsense has the remote access functionality, which is the main functionality that I need. OPNsense is very easy to set up and very easy to manage. It is also very fast.

Its initial setup is very easy. 

In France, we have less than five engineers. That's why we try to do everything by ourselves. We chose pfSense because it is user-friendly.

Its price is pretty fair.

If you don't need WireGuard VPN, pfSense is better because it is easier to use than OPNsense. It is a very good platform. Its web administration interface has been working fine.

I would rate pfSense an eight out of ten. A couple of months ago, I would have rated it a ten out of ten because of the WireGuard VPN feature.

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.

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.

We use the solution for a Firewall and a VPN.

We have found that this solution is better at keeping our business safe by having improved intrusion prevention than competitors.

I have found the firewall portion for the blocking most valuable.

The VPN feature of the solution could improve by adding better functionality and providing easier configure ability.

I have been using the solution for approximately six months.

The solution is very stable.

I have found the solution to be unlimited when it comes to scalability. The more memory and power you give it, it will use it all.

I found the technical support of the solution to be not very good at all.

I have used Fortinet previously and the installation took a lot less time to install. Additionally, I have also used SonicWall before but I switched to the current solution because it was getting too expensive. 

The initial installation was very difficult, it took approximately one week.

We did the implementation and maintenance of the solution ourselves.

The solution software does not require a license, it is free. The support contract is about $600 dollars. 

I would recommend for other people looking into implementing the solution to read the manual, go on to the videos, verify everything with the tutorials. Make sure you fully comprehend the size of the software.

I rate pfSense a seven out of ten.