Netgate pfSense Reviews

• MAC Filtered DHCP and DNS
• Captive Portal
• VPN
• Proxy Server
• Proxy Filter

It has provided us with secure internet browsing and a strong monitoring ability.

Proxy filters are not supported for the blocking of HTTPS sites.

I've used it for two to three years.

No issues encountered yet.

No issues encountered yet.

No issues encountered yet.

Customer Service:

I have not gotten any support from the customer service center because I can get all the solutions on their web blogs.

Technical Support:

I think it is perfect.

I was using another product, but it didn't have a bandwidth controller and monitoring tool like this product does. I switched because I can find everything in one window.

Its installation setup & procedure is so simple that a layman could install it.

I installed it by myself and used Google for assistance.

It's positive.

I just downloaded the program from the website free of chard. The best thing is, this product can be installed on any machine.

No other options were evaluated.

It is recommended, as it is a stable product.

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. 

On-premises

Outbound Load Balance for internet links work great. It's very good to keep internet access for the company we support.

I could keep my customers working even if they lose one internet link. Most of them have at least two links.

We have been using this for 10 years.

There was a problem when I ran a version update, then the server just stopped working. This was because pfSense (in this case FreeBSD) was no longer supporting the hardware of the server (HPE).

There were no stability issues. If there are issues, they usually stem from a hardware fault.

There were no scalability issues.

Customer Service:

It is usually easy to find answers in the forum.

Technical Support:

Technical support is good.

I used Kerio and Microsoft. I switched because I was looking for something with better security and for someone who could fix bugs faster.

The setup was easy. You can install it in two minutes. It takes more than five minutes to put it to work with a single internet link plus NAT.

It is free.

It's easy to access and configure in general.  As for features, the firewall and security  options were valuable.  These are valuable because I like simple things that are easy to work with, as too much difficulty or too much constraint is not good, and boring.

It provided us with better security.

I used it for two months.

There were no issues during the time I used it.

There were no issues during the time I used it.

There were no issues during the time I used it.

It was straightforward because it's simple and easy to understand to begin using.

We used a vendor team who had a good amount of knowledge,

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. 

VPN has allowed me to deploy applications just for the organization and not to public servers.

The ability to create a VPN allows me to monitor branch offices from a central location.

A way to clean squid cache from the GUI.

Not at all.

This product supports multiple ISP's, so it's good for implementation.

It's made us more productive.

FTP was not allowed, and it didn't indicate during set up whether FTP was to be allowed or disabled.

I've used it for about one year.

The stability is good.

The stability is good.

The technical support is good.

It's free.

All the other features are good, and with it being free, it is very attractive to the users.

Performance, cost effective, scalable, customizable

After switching from Cisco, Juniper, Astaro and Microsoft network response improved and more control of packet (for me, pfpacket technology is better than packet filter.)

Graphic report implementation tool (now possible with extra software)

5+ years.

No, perfect scalability from 20 to 500 users

Cisco, Microsoft and when TMG progressively died it was necessary to switch to unix technology, many corporations require low budget and high performance.

The initial approach is very complex because of the multiple functions, but after a short learning curve it is able to handle the standard functions.

In my case, I buy network appliance from Lanner Inc. ltd (watchguard supplier) and deploy the image depending on the desired size and functionality required by the customer.

Identify the most suitable hardware for the required size.

Yes, Astaro and PaloAlto plus Juniper, but the renewal planes (AV, UTM, etc.) are very expensive.