Netgate pfSense Reviews

We use the solution as the main firewall and a proxy for load balancing our web servers.

The best feature of the tool is its all-in-one capabilities. It is a firewall with built-in IDS and IPS, load balancing, and VPN connections. The VPN integration, particularly with internal AD environments, provides stable connections. Centralized authentication is a notable benefit as well. We primarily use it for these features on our server level and are planning to expand their use in our complex environment to connect employees and services. 

Netgate pfSense is cost-effective because you can start using it for free. You can research how to install and configure everything, then install it virtually on any device or partition some hardware. This allows you to start using a firewall without any initial cost.

For larger companies, if you have one or two people skilled with the tool, they can design the complete network using it. That's all you need. You don't have to invest in expensive subscriptions or big hardware setups.

My only suggestion is that Netgate pfSense implement more graphical monitoring. While there are accounts with add-ons for graphical monitoring of data networking, IPS, IDS, and firewall-level events, having more graphical representations like blocks would make the tool more capable. Although it has commercial support and a good GUI, it can still be challenging for someone without firewalls, command lines, and networking knowledge.

Adding features to the solution through packages is somewhat limited. The marketplace doesn't have as many options as you might expect.

One example is the IPS/IDS system. Netgate pfSense still uses Snort 2.9, even though version 3.0 has been out for about a year. Version 3.0 offers important improvements like multi-core support, significantly speeding up processing. The solution seems slow to update to newer versions of these third-party packages.

The tool should provide beta versions with the latest package updates sooner so users can benefit from new features and improvements.

Another issue is the lack of a package marketplace. Despite being open source and customized by many developers globally, there isn't a wide selection of community-created packages. The reasons for this aren't clear to me - it could be security concerns or other factors.

Based on my experience using Netgate pfSense for about four years, I can't say the improvements in our environment are solely due to the product. It's a combination of Netgate pfSense and another monitoring tool we use.

Monitoring is crucial. The easier the monitoring and user interface, the simpler our team can work on and investigate issues. Accessing data becomes more difficult when you use commands or other complex methods.

With our third-party tools, log viewing is very straightforward. The tool logs everything important. This was helpful when our site was slow, and we needed to determine why. The logs from Negate pfSense and our IT systems help us identify issues.

However, the solution's combination with a third-party monitoring tool provides a graphical interface. This makes it much easier to review logs and pinpoint problems.

If Netgate pfSense had a better graphical interface, it would be one of the best products available. I think the graphical interface should be much better and easier to monitor. For example, I encountered errors when I installed HAProxy, a load balancer available in the solution. It was difficult to determine the errors because the backend wasn't working properly. It took us a long time to identify the exact issue because more detailed error information isn't directly available in the current interface. You must go through different steps to trace and see what errors are coming up.

If the tool could improve in this area and provide more error details directly in the interface, that would be beneficial. As for packages, if they could update to newer versions of third-party packages more quickly, that would be helpful. I understand they might not be able to use the very latest versions immediately, but if they could provide updates within three to six months of a new package release, users could try new features sooner.

One additional feature that would be helpful is SAML authentication. Many companies now use Azure or AWS; in our case, we use Office 365 for email and authentication. If SAML authentication was available in pfSense, we could have integrated it with Office 365, allowing users to log in directly using their existing credentials.

The tool can integrate with Azure AD internally, but SAML or two-factor authentication, such as SMS, would provide better security. Firewalls are usually kept behind the scenes and not exposed, but this feature would be useful in some cases.

We've offered Netgate pfSense to many clients, managing it for them and migrating them from existing firewalls. They're generally happy with the change. However, some clients were looking for these additional authentication features. While we can integrate with Office 365, a direct connection option would be beneficial.

I have been working with the product for four years. 

I use Netgate pfSense Plus. We mainly chose it for early updates and commercial support, as advertised on their site. I've only used the support once, though. We started with the free version, which worked fine without issues. After three to four months, we upgraded to the Netgate pfSense Plus environment. Since then, it's been very stable. We've never had problems that required rolling back changes after updates. The updates are very stable - we don't have issues when we update the firewall. So overall, it's been quite stable for us.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten. 

My company has five users using the solution in two locations. The solution's documentation shows that it is scalable. 

There is a lot of support material available on the Internet. You need to do some research. In my experience, I've only had to contact Netgate pfSense support once in the last four years, and that was because I messed up the operating system in our virtualized environment. 

We were previously using Cisco ASA 5500. After three years, we needed to upgrade the hardware and the subscription. At that time, we were moving from an on-premise solution to the cloud, so we decided to try Netgate pfSense. Our vendor recommended it. We wanted to get at least six months of experience with it to ensure its features were stable and it could handle higher loads without breaking. That was one of the main reasons we chose the solution.

The solution's deployment is straightforward. The basic setup took us just about two to three hours. However, designing our custom network configuration took a bit longer. Overall, we got the tool up and running in about three to four days in my environment. There were three people involved in the deployment process: myself and two other team members.

Netgate pfSense doesn't require much maintenance on our end. It's pretty smooth. We monitor alerts. When there's a new update, we test it in our staging environment to see if it affects anything. If it's smooth, we upgrade.

The tool has helped us save money. 

The tool is flexible; even the free, open-source version offers many features. From a cost perspective, even the subscription model for commercial support isn't too costly. However, it's important to have someone knowledgeable about Netgate pfSense to take advantage of it. While there are online resources, a professional or someone experienced can get much more out of the solution. I've heard that the IPS/IDS licenses and other features can be costly.

The solution is very cheap. It's so affordable that even students can use it on their laptops. It's a good, cost-effective product.

The solution has a single web interface, which you could consider a container. Within this container, there are multiple interfaces or sections. You must navigate to different settings to manage different aspects of the system.

So, while it's all contained within one web interface, you can't see or manage everything from a single screen.

I recommend the tool to our clients. We help them implement and support it. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I have Netgate 4100 and pfSense Plus.

My career is in IT, and Netgate is part of my home network, which does hot failover between two ISPs because I work from home a lot and do not want to be disconnected. It handles all my home security, manages remote access to my systems when I am abroad, and hosts some services such as health checks from Route 53, WireGuard, etc.

I was able to see its benefits immediately. One issue it helped me solve was that I was hitting bandwidth caps from one ISP and did not understand why. It turned out that the ISP was counting all return traffic from outsiders probing my home network. They would find my Linux device and see that there was an open SSH port, and they would hammer at it. This generated an enormous amount of traffic. Installing pfSense allowed me to detect it accurately and shut down this traffic.

It is hard to say if pfSense helped prevent data loss in any way, but unauthorized access to my network and the data I have on my network from the outside is not feasible now.

I can do all the things I want to do from the device. I do not have to set up services on other hosts. I do not have to have any other UI in place. I can just go to pfSense and do all the things I need. The slight caveat to that is that I am not operating AWS or GCP from pfSense. I have set up my health check from Route 53. I have set a couple of very simple things in AWS, but I do the rest of the things from pfSense. It is pretty close to a single pane of glass.

I use pfSense Plus and found pfSense Plus to be more robust than the Community Edition. Any network device needs occasional prophylactic reboots. The frequency of issues, such as the tables being all dirty or memory being scrambled, has significantly reduced with pfSense Plus. The hardware has considerably improved. Because I was running Community Edition on an older Netgate, it is difficult to understand where I am getting the improvement from, but pfSense Plus has certainly been a lot more robust. I have fewer instances where one of the interfaces just stopped working. That used to happen with Community Edition fairly regularly. I have not had that trouble at all here. Upgrades have been a lot smoother. They are down to just a reboot, whereas, with Community Edition, I had to regularly wipe the device, reinstall the operating system on pfSense, and load in my configuration from backup, which I was able to do and usually worked. I spend a lot less time in system maintenance using pfSense Plus than with Community Edition.

Its out-of-the-box performance meets my needs. When I wonder whether my network is a little sluggish, I am able to go in and find out things, such as one of my ISPs being dropped out of my load balancing config because of too many latent pings. It has been very useful and easy to do those sorts of things.

It is very flexible. I have not found a use case that I could not satisfy with the device. There are more use cases I am not currently using. For instance, I do not have an HA setup. I use it for my internal home DNS and DHCP services and to split the VLANs so that I have Internet of Things and guest VLANs. I trust the device's VLAN. It helps me deny traffic from large areas of the world that do not need to interact with my firewall.

With such solutions, there is always a learning curve, but with enough foundation, I have never found that curve very hard to climb. Whenever I have tackled a new thing, a little bit of searching on the web and playing with the UI has always gotten me where I wanted to be.

It is best practice to remove all installed packages before you do an upgrade because most upgrade failures have to do with having installed packages. These are additional packages that supply functionality above and beyond what comes in the base operating system. We have to remove them one at a time. I would prefer being able to click a button that says," I am upgrading, so uninstall everything and store in the configuration file what I had installed." It already keeps the configuration of all the packages installed. Even if I do not install them again, the configuration for those packages is still there after the upgrade. It would be very nice to have a one-click feature. There can be a check flag on the upgrade screen to remove packages first and then another check flag to reinstall them after the upgrade. This would be extremely handy, particularly when I have a lot of packages. It takes me about 15 to 20 minutes to uninstall and reinstall them all after the upgrade.

A couple of weeks ago, I would have had another area for improvement, even though it was outside their purview. They are switching DHCP providers from ISV to something, but it did not have a feature I wanted, which was client hostname registration for statically served IP addresses. I rely on this for host management inside my trusted network, but that feature has been released now, so I feel more comfortable moving to the new DHCP version they support.

I have used the solution for at least seven years.

Since operating Netgate 4100 and pfSense Plus, anytime I wondered if the device itself was laggy, it was not the device. It was something upstream causing the issue. I have an HA configuration and a load balancer, so if one of the links goes down, the device gets a little laggy as it drops that interface and brings up the other one as the primary. If the ISP is flapping, this will happen continuously, introducing a lot of network lag, but that is trivial now that I understand what is happening. As soon as I start feeling lag, I check the logs to see if that is the cause. The device itself has not ever been latent or lagging. It has been rock solid.

I found it very scalable. I am out of ports on my device because of having multiple ISPs and VLANs. I do not have an HA setup, so the device scaled very well for my needs personally. When we deployed an HA pair in a professional situation, we had a much larger network, and it scaled to cover that easily.

I have only contacted them to get a download of the operating system image ahead of any upgrade attempt just in case I needed to start from scratch.

Neutral

I have used a number of different solutions. I have used firewall software and hardware of all kinds, both professionally and personally, reaching back to the early 2000s.

The initial deployment was done many years ago. I remember it being pretty straightforward back then. One of the things I enjoyed about the device is that the configuration file is like the starter batter where someone gives you a lump of yeast and dough pinched from someone else's. 

I have been able to roll my configuration file forward every time I switched devices or operating systems. This has made it a lot easier to maintain the device. Even when I had to completely wipe the machine and start over, it was pretty trivial in almost all cases. It has certainly been a lot easier since I started using pfSense Plus to get my configuration back up and running again.

When I ran an IT shop a few years ago, we had an off-the-shelf solution where years ago, somebody had built a firewall solution using a couple of rack-mount PCs and some open-source security package. It was a black box. Nobody around understood it anymore, and I needed to replace it. I went to look for hardware that my shop wanted to use, like Cisco, but the price was well out of our budget, so we went with a pair of HA Netgate devices and pfSense. That solved our problem. I thought it was a good price point for a good solution.

Their pricing is quite reasonable. It is very good. Every firewall is a router, but typically, in an enterprise situation, these are separate. My home is essentially a small office. My partner and I work from home a lot, and I am the system administrator, network administrator, and security administrator. The values are high because I am not maintaining two machines. I am not spending my own power on two different devices. For small office or home use, such as mine, pfSense is valuable because it combines multiple functions into one low-power device.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten. 

We use pfSense as the main firewalls coming into most of the companies we support. I work for an MSP. We've used different things. Our higher-end customers even run pfSense high availability clusters, and those work like a champ.

It has made deploying firewalls a faster process due to ease of configuration.

One of the features we use the most is the OpenVPN and IPsec VPN tunneling built within it. We have places that are headquarters and multiple locations where we create tunnels. We support police departments and stuff like that. Part of our use case is one of our police departments that does their own dispatching, so they have software that they run in-house. So we set their points out where the points themselves dial back in through OpenVPN using client certificates to create that always-on tunnel. Prior to us taking that over, they were using FortiGates, and the FortiGate FortiVPN was constantly dropping, and they were constantly having to re-authenticate. They would have to put 2FA back in. Since we've put in pfSense, we have the cradlepoints in cars establish the VPN connection, and we hardly ever hear from them since there seem to be no issues.

pfSense's flexibility is great. If you don't have the money to buy the NetGate hardware, anything works with it. You can toss it on any low-end piece of hardware or virtualize it if you choose to virtualize it. It is super flexible.

It's easy to add features to pfSense or configure them, especially if you're familiar with pfSense. They have a complete repository of apps that you can choose from and different types of monitoring packages you can put on it. They're all very, very straightforward and very easy to set up. I even run a pfSense for my home firewall. I've got AT&T fiber coming into my house. I bridge the public IP through, patch the modem into my pfSense, and have no issues whatsoever. I even run multiple VLANs off of it.  I replaced a FortiGate with this setup.

The benefits are witnessed immediately after you deploy it. Immediately after you deploy it you're no longer having to read articles to figure out what flaw has been found in this version of FortOS or what flaw has been found in this version of SonicWall that's being run. You just you don't seem to have that in the pfSense platform.

pfSense provides with a customizable dashboard landing page.  You can add widgets to show you any piece of information you want to see. I can add in a widget where, from the dashboard, it'll show me, what OpenVPN clients I have connected. It'll show me traffic graphs from LAN, optional ports, uptime, what version of BSD I'm on, what version of pfSense I'm on, whether there's an update available for PFSense, IP information, et cetera. It gives me all this within the main loading dashboard screen.

To manage multiple devices, you would have to subscribe to a third-party service to have the ability to do that.

This is truly set it and forget it. We didn't quite run into that as much with FortiGate. Even with the third-party add-ons, we don't seem to run into issues with the pfSense product where we have to be so hands-on.

There are two versions of pfSense, the community edition, which is free, and the paid version, Plus. We run both. We're getting more away from the community edition since we're starting to just purchase NetGate appliances. We're buying it strictly through NetGate. At this point, we're even starting to add on the tech support, which is top-notch.

pfSense can help to minimize downtime. You can set them up in a high-availability cluster, and that pretty much minimizes all downtime. Your secondary appliance picks up if your primary appliance goes down. It makes it really easy to apply updates or reboot the one firewall. It switches over so seamlessly. Your users never know the difference. When the primary firewall comes back up, it'll take over the primary function again, and then you can reboot your secondary firewall.

The visibility in pfSense enables us to make data-driven decisions. You can use traffic graphs and the historical data of those traffic graphs, especially if you're monitoring your WAN connection, to know whether you're oversaturating your line and whether you need to update your bandwidth coming into your building or not. That way, if you're seeing slowdowns on the internet, you can go back to your traffic graphs and figure out if you are seeing the slowdown from your provider or just oversaturating the line. If that's the case, I just need to call and order some more bandwidth.

As far as optimizing the performance goes, I like the fact that you can take interfaces within pfSense and put bandwidth limits on them. If I have a guest network, I can put a throttle limit on it to make sure that somebody doesn't hook to my guest and eat up so much bandwidth that my primary network can't function.

They're very affordable for what they offer. However, they should become more MSP-centric. They could design a centralized dashboard that I, as an MSP provider, can create sites and load my pfSense in there. That way, I can schedule updates to run after hours and things along those lines. They need to design for MSPs that are using their products and make centralized management easier.

I've been using pfSense for at least a decade. 

pfSense doesn't ever crash. If I had any gripe about these things, it's the fact that sometimes the update process will break the appliance. I'm not sure what causes it. I've had a few appliances where they've been running fine, and I go to apply an update, and then they just don't boot back normally. At that point, I reach out to support. They give me the reload file that I need. I reload the appliance. I dump the config back on it, and then it's good to go.

As long as you're buying an appliance that will support the bandwidth that you need to push through it, scalability is fine.We've got some of them running 10 to 12 VLANs. We've got one particular one that has no less than five different OpenVPN setups depending upon the department you're in.

Their paid support is top-notch.

With the community edition, and this probably is one of my gripes to pfSense, and this is more on the NetGate side, is that they don't make their images readily available to you. So you have to open a support ticket. You have to give them the hardware ID. You have to give them the serial number of the appliance, and then they will send you the file that you need to reload the operating system. Even so, we're talking about less than an hour of waiting time, and somebody will respond to the ticket and give you a link where you can download the software to reload it.

Positive

We've used SonicWall. We've used FortiGate. We always seem to go back to the Netgate and the PS pfSense just due to the fact being open source, they seem to have fewer security flaws in them than running something that is a closed proprietary system. With FortiGate, you constantly need to update, since they're constantly finding flaws in the FortiOS, and we just don't seem to have that from pfSense and the NetGate supply of products.

There was more hands-on work with FortiGate. If you're doing any type of web filtering, they would come out with an update where a website that did work would start getting miscategorized. And then all of a sudden, it would stop working. And you would have to go in and make a white list and an exception for it.

We buy the appliances and then install the appliances on our customer sites.

The initial deployment is easy. How long it takes depends on how simple or how complicated it is. As far as just a simple firewall goes, I can have one of them up and running in 15 to 20 minutes.

Even if you are not too knowledgeable, it would be very easy. When you first boot into it and go to the web interface, it has a wizard that walks you through setting the IP address on your LAN and configuring whether you're using DHCP or static on the LAN. That wizard that walks you right through what to do right out of the box.

Just one person is generally needed for deployment. 

After the deployment, it's pretty much set it and forget it. I will go in and I will check quarterly if an update needs to be applied, however, they don't come up with updates that often. Maybe once a quarter, once every six months, an update has to be applied to the appliance. Other than that, I am only logging into these appliances if I need to make rule changes or if I need to bring up an additional VLAN in the network.

The licensing model is good. It's probably a little expensive for the hardware that you get. However, a part of that price is the support. And their support is top-notch. Even if you're only using the community support, and you're not paying for the extra support, they probably pad the hardware prices a little bit to help offset their support people. 

I love the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of pfSense. That's one of our selling points to our customers. You can buy this, buy once, or, you can look at going to Meraki or FortiGate or something like that, but, be paying licensing fees every single year to keep that product up and running.

I'm an MSP.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

If you're going with the NetGate appliance, I'd let new users know that they are already optimized for pfSense. If it's something that you're looking to virtualize or if you're looking to use a community edition on your own hardware, my recommendation would be just to make sure that you use Intel network cards. I have never had a problem out of an Intel NIC for getting the OpenBSD underlying platform to recognize those network cards and load the proper drivers for them. That way, they show up within the pfSense software.

The solution's most valuable features are high availability and the VPN options. Netgate pfSense has the ability to support multiple interfaces and spin up virtual IPs.

What drew me to Netgate pfSense from the beginning is that it's free, open-source software. I wanted the solution for additional control over firewall routing, and there wasn't really anything else on the market that would do that.

Netgate pfSense is very flexible. I like that it can run on enterprise bare metal and Raspberry Pi. Obviously, Netgate has a lot of appliances ranging from extremely small to extremely large.

pfSense Plus is extremely low-cost. Its comparative features include high availability, the ability to tune system variables, and support for hundreds of interfaces.

It would be great for the solution to have better logs. Some of the solution's graphs that show visibility on system performance or session count lack resolution. For example, you may only be able to see the session count by day if you want to look back more than a month.

In contrast, we would want to see the session count fluctuate by an hour or five-minute increments. It would be helpful to be able to query larger data sets, even if you had to break them up into smaller subsets.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for seven years.

The solution's scalability is very poor past 5,000 clients and impossible past 10,000 clients.

I had a very poor experience with the solution's technical support.

Negative

I switched from Netgate pfSense to Fortinet. Scalability and high availability are significantly better with Fortinet. It took me about 10 to 15 hours to set up high availability in Netgate pfSense just because of the way it works with virtual IPs and CARP.

On the other hand, it takes about 15 minutes with Fortinet. It's just a completely different experience. Also, the performance availability for appliances is a thousand times better with some of the higher-end offerings at Fortinet versus the highest-end offerings that Netgate has.

The solution's initial setup is difficult because of the extensive setup it takes to achieve high availability.

In our case, it took us around 40 hours to fully deploy the solution from start to finish.

I think Netgate pfSense's TAC or support is a little expensive, considering how inexpensive everything else is. Netgate's most expensive appliance costs around $5,000. However, an annual subscription to TAC costs around $1,000, which is roughly 20% of what you pay for the hardware. It seems a little excessive.

I would say it's pretty easy to add and configure features to Netgate pfSense. However, if you add features that Netgate does not officially support, you can run into issues with your support contracts. It's easy to add features, but it's extremely difficult to support something that is not an official Netgate plug-in.

We saw the benefits of Netgate pfSense pretty immediately after deploying it. We have been scaling, though. As we got to a very large deployment across different sites, we started to see additional problems, but then we also saw additional value added. Initially, there's a lot of value, which increases over time, but eventually, you hit a wall where it's just not that valuable.

On the surface, it looks like pfSense Plus provides visibility that enables data-driven decisions. Unfortunately, after many back-and-forths with support, they say that it looks like the firewall has done something, but there's nothing in the log. There's no data to support their theories. On the surface, it looks like it should, but we found in practice that it was missing a lot of data that would help us make decisions that we needed to make.

The solution's total cost of ownership is good for what it is. I don't think I would ever use it in an enterprise environment anymore. As a value proposition, it's really good for a small business application or a company with multiple sites that you need to be able to interconnect.

You can set up an entire ecosystem for $ 5,000 to $ 6,000 with top-of-the-line hardware from Netgate. Unfortunately, with our user account, throughput, and bandwidth, we've just outgrown it and can't use it anymore.

We've bought appliances for Netgate pfSense's deployment, and we've also deployed the solution on separate machines. Most recently, we used the appliances.

Technically, we never got Netgate pfSense to a good solid state. For the four to six months we had it in production, it was constantly down and needed at least 20 hours of maintenance a week.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

We have been building local firewall systems since 2008. 

The main use cases for Netgate pfSense are its exceptional stability and reputation as a premier network operating system worldwide. Millions of people are using it, and we have rolled out a new hotspot system that works from the cloud. The service is running under the pfSense portal.

Netgate pfSense impacts our organization positively because it's open source and has a free edition, which helps us significantly in building our own systems for our customers. It helps in building a new firewall system for the Turkish market. It helps us substantially.

Netgate pfSense's best features are that it's open source and flexible. We have implemented IPsec VPNs, site-to-site VPNs, and client-to-site VPNs. 

We appreciate the flexibility of the Netgate pfSense solution, but we have waited approximately two years for new updates to the Community Edition. We are now moving to OPNsense.

I appreciate Netgate pfSense because we have been using it for approximately 18 years, which is a considerable amount of time. We are waiting for pfSense to integrate AdGuard, Pi-hole, or Zenarmor directly into the pfSense kernel. When I install packages, such as Snort or OpenVPN client export tool, I need to install AdGuard or Zenarmor because it's very challenging to ban TikTok, YouTube, or social media for our customers. In the early days, we managed this using SquidGuard, but since the blacklist has changed, we are struggling. There are many other blacklists I have tried, but I couldn't make them work. It has to be much easier for engineers to implement this. It's easy to integrate AdGuard into OPNsense; it becomes a function under the firewall. You can easily switch blacklists on and off, and create custom blacklists to block all social media with a toggle. We would appreciate such facilities in pfSense as otherwise, we have to manually enter all the websites, DNS resolver, and DNS overrides. Writing numerous rules on the LAN side during installation takes considerable time.

We have been using Netgate pfSense since 2008.

Netgate pfSense is a stable solution for me.

It's a scalable solution. Two months ago, I purchased a brand new server edition, a Lenovo ThinkSystem server with 128 GB RAM. I installed this pfSense server in a data center, and it's working fine. Many people connect via VPN; three or four sites are connecting site-to-site, and we also established another IPsec connection to one of the biggest ISPs in Turkey. It's working great now.

We have never asked for technical support from Netgate. We rely on the resources on the web for information.

Neutral

Two months ago, we switched to OPNsense, and we are now studying OPNsense. We made a strong decision to switch to OPNsense because of the large solutions. There are many facilities, such as AdGuard and Zenarmor, which can be easily installed under OPNsense. We are studying OPNsense, and we will likely switch to OPNsense in 2025 because we are still waiting for a stable version of pfSense. 2.7.2 is very old, and we have switched to the 2.8 beta version, but we are still making our tests now.

Since we have been using pfSense for almost 18 years, we have learned extensively about Netgate pfSense. We have worked extensively and watched many educational videos from the United States, and we have made ourselves ready for pfSense. If one understands the system, it's easy to handle, but without knowledge, it's very challenging for everybody. Many people try to work with pfSense in Turkey with the free edition, the Community Edition, but they couldn't succeed because it's a complex system. It's a vast ocean, and understanding every protocol is necessary. Basically, all firewall systems are the same. Brands such as Cisco, FortiGate, and Sophos sell well in Turkey, and we are competing with these companies. Our target market is the small market, not the big companies or holdings, especially in the hospitality sector, where we deal with hotels and motels.

We would appreciate seeing facilities similar to OPNsense for Community Edition. In Turkey, people generally don't want to pay for yearly subscriptions to firewall systems. We barely recouped our investment for our Safe Hotspot system in Turkey. Competing with other brands such as Sophos, FortiGate, and Cisco is challenging. These brands also require annual payments, and due to Turkey's economic conditions, everyone is eliminating such costs. We have produced our hardware for pfSense, but it was not Netgate; it was only pfSense in the early days. We made our own rack mount 5 or 8 port firewall systems in Turkey and sold many.

The initial setup of Netgate pfSense is not complex; it's very easy. I can even have one of our resellers burn a pfSense USB stick and install pfSense without knowing anything about it. 

Because the Community edition is free, we only charge for our services to the customers. In Turkey, we cannot demand normal pricing; if we were in Europe or the United States, we might collect more money from customers. The conditions in Turkey are very challenging, and collecting payment is difficult. We often charge half or one-third of the price compared to Europe.

We would like to buy Netgate hardware, but when I checked its price in Europe, it seemed expensive.

I would rate Netgate pfSense a 10 out of 10.

We're primarily using the solution for testing. We're also using it internally at our own site, mostly as a reverse proxy, but also for the speed. Not all firewalls have 2.5 and and ten gig WAN ports.

The format, the layout and the interface are excellent. We really like that it is quite simple to use and straightforward. The quality, in particular, the ones we have is the Netgate unit, is particularly robust in terms of the look and feel as well as their speed and quality.

We appreciate its flexibility. Its usability is great.

We were able to witness positive results from the product pretty much immediately.

Its SD-WAN capabilities are great. The onboard storage is nice for keeping configs and logs, et cetera.

We do get a single pane of glass for management. It's well laid out and provides clear visibility into management features. Everything is easy to find within the menu bars and options. It is all very logical.

We're using the Plus version with Netgate.

pfSense does provide features to help minimize downtime. There's a failover availability, and there are high availability configurations. We don't use that; however, that's good to have if you need it. Having multiple endpoints or configurations on all of the ports is possible. It helps keep up our site and other sites.

With the logging capabilities, the solution provides visibility and enables you to make data-driven decisions. A lot of our clients are smaller, so they are nowhere near the limits of what pfSense can do by any means. 

The ease of changing parameters helps us optimize performance. It's a lot easier than what can be done with competitors, for sure. 

The solution could improve by adding in some sort of user account credentials in the sense of accommodating more levels of users. From what I've found, everybody has basically the same access. 

A formal partnership with some sort of VPN vendor, like OpenVPN, would be nice.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years. 

The stability is very good. there is no lagging or crashing. It's reliable. 

The scalability is good. However, we and our clients aren't too large. 

I've never needed to contact technical support. 

In the past, we have used Fortinet devices. pfSense is definitely easier to configure and use. It doesn't have quite the same feature set. However, that's fine - you don't always need the full feature set. We find that the add-ons that are available are fine. You just have to find them from a third party. 

The initial deployment was easy.

There isn't any maintenance needed beyond updates. The base install probably took ten minutes and to configure it properly takes two to three hours with some internal servers and multiple ISPs. You just need one person to handle the process. 

I'm using pfSense via Netgate devices, which are reasonably priced. The solution seems to be reasonable. It's well-priced for what you get. It's a bit lower than the competition if you are trying to gauge the cost of ownership. And it adapts well to different speeds.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

I'd rate pfSense eight out of ten.

If a person is familiar with firewalls, they'll be fine adopting it. The interface is pretty easy.

I typically use it as an edge firewall.

pfSense is easy to configure. The features I have configured are firewall rules and dynamic routing through FRR. These advanced features are straightforward to configure, and the documentation, if needed, makes things even easier. 

We are using pfSense Plus. It helps us minimize downtime. There is high availability built into the software. I can deploy two pfSense firewalls, configure them correctly, and they can back up each other in case one of them fails. It is a fantastic free feature integrated into the product, and I utilize it constantly.

pfSense has been somewhat beneficial in helping to prevent data loss. We were able to see its benefits immediately after the deployment.

I find the overall amount of configuration flexibility to be valuable. 

It is fairly maintenance-free. That is one of the strengths of the product. It has no frills and is extremely easy and painless to use. It does not cause any trouble.

Another strength of pfSense is that the documentation is very digestible and easy to understand.

One of the features I know they are working on and would like to see improved is the single pane of glass. They have a beta feature available right now that is good, but I would like to see that more developed and made available to customers sooner rather than later. It is currently very basic. When dealing with a fleet of pfSense firewalls, considering them individually is not the most efficient use of time. 

It does not provide visibility to make data-driven decisions. I cannot derive any analytics or information from the pfSense GUI or software to make data-driven decisions. The visibility that pfSense Plus provides does not help us optimize performance. I want more information and context around the data passing through my firewall to make data-driven decisions. I have used other vendor firewalls that provide some capability to show the traffic or bandwidth passed within the last hour, directly within the firewall software. I need a way to generate a report that I can deliver to my C-suite, allowing us to discuss and determine the best path forward. Currently, you deploy it, and it performs as expected, but there are no analytics or reporting capabilities to extract information from the firewall, generate a report, and engage stakeholders in discussions about network connectivity issues, concerns, or upgrades.

I have used Netgate pfSense for more than five years.

I would rate the stability of the product a nine out of ten.

When assessing scalability, I would probably give it a seven out of ten.

I have interacted with their customer service, and they have been, without a shadow of a doubt, beyond helpful. They are fantastic and truly among the best I have worked with. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have used Palo Alto Firewalls and Cisco ASAs as my primary solutions. If money was no object, Palo Alto Firewalls get the edge only due to the fact that they provide more visibility and analytics in regard to the data that goes through the firewall.

Setting it up is extremely easy. Installing the hardware, configuring the software, and getting it ready to forward and pass traffic takes as little as 45 minutes. It is extremely robust and easy to manage and use.

In my case, it definitely involves a team. When we visit on-site, one person can deploy it, but at least in my business, it is accomplished as a team.

pfSense is excellent for a low total cost of ownership. pfSense pricing is extremely competitive, and it delivers exactly what is advertised. If you are looking for a firewall with advanced feature sets at a very low cost, you cannot get anything better than pfSense. It does exactly as advertised, and that is one of its biggest strengths.

It is extremely affordable in relation to TCO. You get everything that other commercial products give but at an extremely affordable rate, so you can deploy en masse to numerous customers and clients.

My overall advice would be to read the fantastic documentation. Everything you will ever need to do with the product is explained very easily in the documentation. If you have any troubles, just read it, and you will always find an answer. It is one of the best documentation of a product I have used in a very long time. Nothing is hidden.

Overall, I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

The benefits I have seen in my organization from the use of Netgate pfSense rewards around the fact of how quickly we can implement changes that are needed with the tool are definitely one of the main things. Overall, we have experienced less downtime with the tool. In my organization, we have had downtime with Cisco. Overall, we have noticed some performance increases as well with the use of Netgate pfSense.

The solution's most valuable feature is that I really like the third-party add-ons, as they give the firewall a ton of flexibility and extra functionalities.

My organization plans to solve costs-related problems by using Netgate pfSense. We were using Cisco's firewall products, and the license and hardware costs were just too high. With Netgate pfSense, I think we can get a full firewall tool with support and no need for licensing for under 5,000 USD, saving a ton of money.

There were no specific security issues or challenges I was trying to address using Netgate pfSense.

In terms of the overall flexibility offered by the product, I would say that it is very easy to implement, make changes, and adapt to different challenges that we may have with it. It offers a lot of different options, including VPN options for site-to-site client VPNs. Overall, it is a great tool. It is a highly adaptable solution that is, most importantly, very easy to implement.

It is extremely easy to add features to Netgate pfSense and configure them. If you are talking about third-party stuff, it is something that is within the firewall itself. You can go into the Package Manager and install it.

From a configuration point of view, it is extremely easy to use the tool. With third-party stuff, it can be a pain, but overall, it is extremely easy to manage Netgate pfSense since it is mainly a GUI-driven tool. It is super easy to configure overall.

If I assess the solution for helping our organization prevent data loss, I think it has been great for us. Everything has room for improvement, but it has been great right now.

Netgate pfSense provides our organization with a single pane of glass management. The tool offers great flexibility and is awesome. In our organization, we haven't had any issues with it. It just makes changes that need to be done extremely quickly and efficiently by the end of the day.

I have worked with Netgate pfSense Plus. I buy the hardware from Netgate, and it comes with pfSense Plus.

Netgate pfSense Plus provides 100 percent features that help minimize downtime. In extreme situations, implementing connections that were super helpful in the past and just the ease of deployment, the product offers is helpful since even if something happens to the firewall itself, I can have a virtualized firewall doing the same thing within less than an hour. It can help with that downtime. I know that Netgate pfSense is extremely reliable and a great tool.

Netgate pfSense provides 100 percent visibility, enabling my organization to make data-driven decisions. Netgate pfSense is very much configurable. It gives you 100 percent of everything you need to make decisions. It gives you details of all kinds of different graphs, traffic, and firewall rules, along with the things that you definitely need in the form of the data that you need to be able to just make quick data-driven decisions.

Netgate pfSense visibility helps me optimize performance. The data is just so easily accessible that you can make decisions very quickly. It also helps improve performance. In our organization, we have noticed a very noticeable performance increase since we shifted from the old firewall from Cisco to Netgate pfSense.

If I were to assess the total cost of ownership of Netgate pfSense, I would say it is extremely low and affordable. I think it is a really very simple and extremely budget-friendly tool.

In our organization, we have had such a good experience with Netgate pfSense over the last four years. In terms of improvements, I have not really thought much, to be quite honest. Maybe faster releases for the software or the firewall itself can be areas where improvements are possible. The tool is just a little bit slow to release patches, so it is probably one of the things where the tool can improve. In general, the tool is not bad at all at the end of the day.

Speaking about whether any enhancements are required in the tool, I would say that the tool has everything that we need for our usage. We have an extremely complex environment, the most complex of which is how we use Netgate's BGP to connect to our ISP. Netgate pfSense is extremely feature-rich for our specific use scenarios, and we have not encountered any shortcomings in the solution.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for around four years. The box itself says Netgate pfSense XG-1540. I don't remember the software version we are using right now, but all I know is that I keep it up to date. In my organization, it will be the latest version of the product.

I have not faced any issues with the stability of the product. I have one firewall in a very bad physical environment. It was very dusty, but it has been 100 percent reliable.

It is an extremely scalable solution.

In our school, we have close to 1,800 students and 210 teaching staff overall. With administrative staff, I think there are about 50 people.

I have the tool in different locations and on different campuses.

If I can call someone from the product's technical support team, l can have a technical person on the phone with me in less than five minutes. If you have any questions for them, they will come and try to give you the answer as quickly as they can, and if they don't have a reply, they will reply to you later via email. For the amount that it costs per year, the level of service that you get is unbeatable, honestly. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase was extremely straightforward.

When we deployed the product for the first time, we went through its documentation and how to do things. Otherwise, the strategy is usually based on the fact that we have four campuses, and they run in a similar manner. At least for us, we have a master configuration sort of thing, which we can kind of load into Netgate pfSense and make the small changes that we need, like VLAN changes and small things that apply to the location that the device will be deployed to, and it takes less than probably an hour or two to kind of have a firewall deployed working with the bare minimum, which is extremely fast compared to what it takes with Cisco.

In terms of maintenance, it has been pretty much like we do the setup and then forget it. The firmware updates, or physical maintenance, like cleaning the device, are there. From a greater overview, it is just kind of a set-it-up-and-forget kind of solution for us.

The product's deployment was done in-house, and it involved just me. The enterprise-level support from Netgate helped my organization a lot, especially during the first two deployments, but after that, it was easy.

Personally, I do not have any metrics or data points associated with the ROI that I can share with anyone. My CFO is the person who has information related to ROI.

In our organization, the whole point of moving to Netgate pfSense was that we wanted something that wasn't hard to use or where the licensing wasn't so expensive. We looked at different open-source options, but I can't remember their names. We also looked at UniFi's firewall, but Netgate pfSense came on top for us, considering the support provided and the fact that Netgate's team is the main set of people that keep up with pfSense's open-source project. With Netgate, we work directly with people who use Netgate pfSense, and it is great. We did look at other options, one of which was UniFi, but I cannot remember the name of the other alternative to Netgate pfSense. I think it is called OPNsense.

Suppose I compare the other tools I evaluated with Netgate pfSense, and I feel that the pros of pfSense revolve around the area associated with the product's cost in terms of hardware requirements and licensing. There are no existing costs for the licensing or the hardware. You can deal with the licensing part yourself and get it at a cheap rate from elsewhere or buy it from Netgate's boxes directly from the solution company. Another pro would be the ease of management the tool offers since it is possible to have everything that you need in the GUI, which is a little bit controversial because a lot of people like CLI, but sometimes you need to get something quickly without having to have hundreds of different things.

I haven't come across any cons in the product since most of our company's scenarios are simple and small since we are just a school compared to what other big companies have. Everything that Cisco's firewall was doing for us, Netgate pfSense's firewall does for us for a fraction of the cost and even offers a better performance. I would not know the tool's cons since I do not have anything on my mind right now.

I do not use Negate pfSense Plus on Amazon EC2 VMs. In our organization, we are using Negate pfSense Plus on Netgate's hardware. We use Netgate pfSense XG-1540.

To others who plan to use the solution, I would say that the support offered by the product is 100 percent worth it. The enterprise support is also extremely worth it. In a general sense, if people don't know much about implementation, they just need to read the documentation because many things, like the GUI part, could throw some people off. If you come from a CLI-based tool, the GUI aspect can throw you off, and I know it since it threw me off a little bit initially, but we were able to get through the implementation phase very thoroughly as the tool offers great documentation. By thoroughly going through the documentation, you will have a fairly easy time configuring the tool very methodologically. I really don't think I would recommend anything else apart from the fact that others need to read the documentation and take their time.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.