Netgate pfSense Reviews

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.

It's the main firewall for my household. It's also what I'm using to gain access to my employer's website and VPN. It acts as a gateway to my employers. My wife uses the device as a VPN to do her job as well.

I wanted something that is robust and makes it easy to diagnose if anything goes wrong. I'm also used to the system. I've used it since 2006 or 2007. So it was something that was really familiar with. I used to use the free solution. Last year, I decided to jump into the actual hardware devices that these guys sell. I didn't have time anymore to deal with aftermarket hardware. It saves me some time to have their devices.

The main benefit is peace of mind and no downtime or minimal downtime as compared to other solutions that I've used before.

Its ability to put some plug-ins into the system is helpful. There are a couple of packages that I'm using. Since I'm using it mainly as a firewall and sometimes as a VPN endpoint, it's really great.

The flexibility is good. The fact that you can add packages makes the device quite flexible. Also, it's quite overpowered for my needs right now, so that's a good thing. 

Price-wise, the quality to price is pretty much up there, especially when you consider that you don't have to tinker with anything. With hardware, you don't know where you know, how long it's going to last or anything like that. However, with pfSense, you have guaranteed support with NetGate, and this is great.

It's quite easy to configure. It's very intuitive. Maybe that's because I know the interface. There's also tons of of information available online. They have a very good user manual for the software as well. It's very detailed, and it's it's easy to work with. 

There's a forum where you can ask questions, and people are very friendly. Within a couple of hours, sometimes days, somebody has had the issue that you're having before. So, forum responses are quite quick.

It's really easy to work with. There's peace of mind and no downtime.

In terms of preventing data loss, any solution is only as good as its weakest point. And since this is at the very edge of my network, of the outside network, I feel I'm pretty prepared and protected from data breaches. That said, at the end of the day, I'm not opening myself up to many things in the outside world. It's blocking pretty well, and I don't feel threatened. If there's data loss, it's going to be from my end users, not from the device itself.

It provides us with a single pane of glass management for my household. There's only one device that I use.

The main advantage to me right now is that I'm using their reboot environment. It's really easy for me to update, and if some things don't go well, I can go to the previous version and be back up in no time. 

pfSense is just plug-and-play. Performance-wise, once you install the system, it works even when there's been a couple of software updates. It's probably overpowered for what I need. Performance is very good.

If I had to change internal providers, I might have some difficult times. For example, going from cable to ADSL. Right now, it suits my needs, and as long as they keep it updated, I'm pretty good with that.

I've used the solution since December 2023.

The stability is great.

I haven't had to scale the solution.

I haven't had to contact technical support. 

I have used other solutions, such as Untangle, D-Link, and Linksys. There were always a lot of limitations if you didn't adopt the commercial licenses, and those would be expensive. pfSense is reliable, especially with the NetGate hardware. It's also predictable. There's never a big software change. pfSense has been very stable since it's based on FreeBSD. However, it is on a lesser-known OS.

I use a physical device. For implementation, you have to use a console interface through a serial port and then a TTY from your own computer. For some people, maybe it's a bit more difficult. For me, it was really straightforward. It's as easy as setting up a switch. 

I loaded it up the first time and the only thing I had to do was modify my previous config, change the interface names, and just throw it back in there. It takes less than an hour.

There's only maintenance if there's an update. It might be down for a few minutes during that time. It takes maybe five to 10 minutes. Even if something goes wrong, it's pretty easy. You just reimage it and reload the safe configuration. It's much easier than other solutions, like Untangle. 

I handled the implementation myself. I did not need the help of third parties. 

The pricing is reasonable. Before I got the 6000, I was on my own devices. They developed a pricing schedule last year. At first, I was worried, however, it's maybe $130 a year and it's very reasonable compared to other solutions. With the 6000, the price is included within the device itself. 

Compared to other solutions, the total cost of ownership is very good. It's not that it is so much cheaper, it's that it fulfils the needs of more people. With the level of support provided, the price is very reasonable. 

I'd advise new users to take the time to read about the device and the software beforehand. Otherwise, you're going to waste a lot of time trying things that you think are going to work. Since it's not necessarily the same thing as, let's say, Untangle, you have to familiarize yourself with the interface and with the system before actually diving in deep.

I would rate the product ten out of ten.

I have at least two pfSense routers at home in my home lab, serving my house. Additionally, we use it in my company. We have our satellite office in LA, and we use it as the main router. The use cases involve a router, firewall, and DHCP server.

I was able to see pfSense's benefits immediately because I used it as a learning tool too. From the very beginning, I was able to inspect traffic and see what was happening on my network. That was pretty useful.

pfSense is flexible. I like it. I can install it on different hardware. I can virtualize it if I want.

It is pretty easy to add features to pfSense and configure them. If something is supported by Netgate and it is in their package manager, it is pretty easy, and if it is not, I would not want to add it. I would not be confident enough to put it on my firewall.

pfSense has not directly helped to prevent data loss, but it helps indirectly by protecting the network and not letting in malicious things.

pfSense Plus provides features that help us minimize downtime. Preventive notifications and ZFS snapshots are helpful features. 

pfSense Plus helps to make data-driven decisions to some extent such as which device is using the most bandwidth. The visibility that pfSense Plus provides helps us optimize performance.

The Tailscale integration is very helpful. The DHCP and DNS server functionalities, as well as the package manager, are also good. 

I am using its paid version. I am paying at home for the Plus version, but I wish they would pay attention to the community version. I know there is less incentive for Netgate to develop the community version, but it would be cool to have that.

pfSense does not give us a single pane of glass management. I know that they are coming out with that as a beta or alpha feature, but it is not there yet.

I have experienced only hardware-related issues with Netgate. They are not related to pfSense as a software. I purchased a Netgate firewall, an SG-4100, which is a $600 device, intending to make it a solid piece of my home lab and support the project. It died in one and a half years. I do not see the value in buying their hardware, as their customer support was not friendly or helpful. Eventually, I bought pfSense Plus, which allows using a roughly $200 device that offers part-swapping to keep the device alive or even buying two of them. The pfSense Plus subscription is roughly the same value.

Support for third-party hardware is less documented, not being their preferred option. For most things, it is pretty solid. Other firewalls such as SonicWall offer more protection features such as deep packet inspection. I know that is possible with Snort or Suricata. That is one thing that could differentiate open-source firewalls from the main players. 

Another suggestion is automatic updates to reduce maintenance for smaller setups.

I have used Netgate pfSense for roughly three to four years.

Since they fixed the DHCP issues, it has been pretty stable.

Scalability has never been an issue. I have not dealt with more than 10 gigabit traffic, so I have not experienced any problems.

They answer promptly. However, I do not feel valued when I pay about $150 a year, and they only include certain things for people without the Netgate hardware. They had some general first-time setup features but nothing that actually caused problems. For instance, when I imported my previous configuration to my new hardware, it was not covered. So, even if advertised similarly, it is not the same if I do not own the Netgate hardware.

Neutral

At work, in our main office, we use SonicWall. I also use UniFi Firewalls, ranging from smaller to larger ones, and actively manage two or three of them.

As compared to SonicWall, the user interface of pfSense is much easier to handle. It is also faster even though our SonicWall is a much beefier device. pfSense is more well-organized compared to SonicWall.

With their own devices, it was pretty easy. With third-party hardware, it was a little more difficult because certain devices are not as compatible. It is easier if people double-check compatibility, but in general, it is pretty easy.

It requires maintenance from me. I have to update packages and make sure that everything is running properly and the hardware is fine.

It is a one-person task. If you have the specifications and knowledge of what network segments and VLANs need to be set up, it can be managed by one person.

It is on the higher side. If you want to purchase pfSense Plus alone, the cost is roughly $150 a year, but the value provided justifies the expense. However, a lower-end tier option, around $100, would be beneficial.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities, for a business, pfSense makes much more sense. I was comparing different solutions and our SonicWall costs way more when we include VPN and other small features.

If installing on your own hardware, you should definitely research compatibility with FreeBSD, and use ZFS, which I believe is the default now. This allows rollback capabilities. It is important to read what is included in the pfSense support package before contacting support, as you might not get answers, and it might be easier to go directly to the forums.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

We use pfSense in our clients' offices to provide secure network access. For remote workers requiring private network connectivity, we deploy a Netgate pfSense router in both the office and the user's home office, establishing a robust IPsec connection between the two. This configuration offers superior security compared to alternatives like OpenVPN, as remote users simply need to connect their LAN cable to the home pfSense for immediate and secure office network access. We primarily serve small organizations with 10 to 200 employees, deploying a pfSense router in each main office and providing OpenVPN or IPsec connectivity. Additionally, we offer optional pfBlocker-NG integration for advanced threat protection, enabling the blocking of traffic from specific geographic regions or known malware sources.

We have several sites with multiple or backup-wide area networks. We use pfSense to manage these networks, configuring them for load balancing or backup as needed. To authenticate OpenVPN logins, we leverage Active Directory on our Windows Server, simplifying user management. Office managers can easily disable both Windows and OpenVPN access for users without needing to access pfSense directly. This centralized approach requires only a single robust passphrase for users to access both the VPN and the Windows domain.

I am accustomed to the interface and find it quick to use. However, I think a new user might need some time to adjust. That said, I've been using it for over 15 years.

As a network administrator, I fully understand the benefits of pfSense before deployment. While end users may not immediately recognize its advantages, I appreciate its value in eliminating the need for costly licenses associated with other firewalls like Barracuda and Checkpoint. PfSense offers a comprehensive suite of features, including VPN, user management, and advanced DNS, without requiring additional fees. This cost-saving aspect is a significant selling point for me when replacing older firewalls with Netgate pfSense. Not only do we improve network security, but we also reduce ongoing expenses, a benefit that becomes apparent to clients over time.

Adding features in the packages section of the interface is quite rapid, especially when limiting options to available packages. However, configuring unfamiliar or infrequently used packages requires research and time, ideally by someone with networking and firewall experience. While pfSense is not entirely plug-and-play, the basic setup is straightforward; adding features demands more technical knowledge. So, feature addition is easy, but configuration can be moderately complex.

pfSense can help prevent data loss by making it difficult for hackers to breach networks. However, most data loss incidents we see result from end-users clicking on malicious links or email attachments. When data loss or ransomware occurs, the issue typically lies with user error rather than pfSense. I believe that the networks I configure using pfBlocker, which restrict communication primarily to the continental US and other approved countries, may help block ransomware. Still, I cannot quantify the frequency of such occurrences.

Approximately ten percent of pfSense routers experience critical issues requiring a factory reset. Previously, this process involved contacting tech support and providing detailed information. However, pfSense has simplified this by offering self-service image downloads. This improvement significantly speeds up customer recovery time. Additionally, Netgate's pfSense Plus hardware comes with a Zero-to-Ping warranty, enabling easy setup and troubleshooting for end users. While not entirely plug-and-play, most users can easily install these routers, and Netgate's warranty provides additional support if needed. I've successfully utilized the Zero-to-Ping warranty several times and believe it is a valuable resource for both technicians and end users.

pfSense has helped enable data-driven decisions. It allows me to communicate the need for faster WAN lines to client management by providing concrete evidence of network performance. Additionally, pfSense offers detailed insights into OpenVPN user activity and IPsec traffic, facilitating targeted problem-solving. For instance, I can readily identify slow IPsec connections for remote users, such as user X, and advocate for necessary improvements based on these data-driven findings.

OpenVPN, IPsec, DHCP, and DNS are the most valuable features. I will also include pfBlocker-NG later in the list, but only a couple of sites use this feature. 

pfSense does offer a convenient single-pane dashboard, but I believe it could be improved with additional features. For instance, an administrator log for team members to record notes, such as adding a nameserver, removing user accounts, or other relevant information, would be beneficial. This simple log within the main status page could enhance communication and collaboration among the admin team. While the current status screen provides most of the necessary information, this extra feature would be a valuable addition.

It would be beneficial if Netgate provided a table outlining the recommended maximum WAN port speeds for their various models.

The documentation doesn't align with what I'm seeing on the console. This is frustrating because the online documentation doesn't match the dashboard, leaving me unsure of the correct steps to take.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for 16 years.

I would rate pfSense's stability a perfect ten. When I replace consumer routers with pfSense for small businesses with two or three employees, they are often amazed to discover the router can run for a year without a reboot. This starkly contrasts their previous experience with consumer routers that required weekly or bi-weekly unplugging.

I have been pleased with pfSense's scalability. While I haven't explored all its features, I have successfully backed up an old system and restored it to a new pfSense device, which I consider an upgrade. I know additional capabilities like load balancing and backup device management but haven't implemented them due to a lack of current need. PfSense offers much more potential than I've utilized.

The quality of the support is high. While the speed used to be somewhat slow, I've noticed a significant improvement in recent calls, connecting with a representative quickly within the past year.

Positive

We've used multiple firewall solutions over the years. Twenty years ago, we implemented Monowall. Subsequently, we switched to Barracuda, which proved highly problematic and required frequent technical support intervention. Our next choice, SonicWall, was an improvement over Barracuda but still presented challenges. Specifically, SonicWall's licensing model is burdensome, as it necessitates constant management on my part, a task end-users are unwilling or unable to perform. Though less frequent than with Barracuda, technical support interactions are still necessary.

Initial deployment is straightforward, taking approximately half an hour for each unit. While pfSense is not the issue, challenges often arise due to clients' limited understanding of their network configurations. A single person can effectively handle the deployment process.

I appreciate that pfSense eliminates the need for extra payments, license management, or feature limitations. This cost-effectiveness and its reliable Zero-to-Ping guarantee is its most compelling aspect.

The pricing seems fair overall, but I think they need more reasonably priced options for very small offices. They currently offer a few affordable units at the lower end, but then there’s a significant price jump to the next level. I remember they used to have a model around the 2100 range that was a good middle ground. I believe they should offer more choices between the lowest tier and the next one in terms of hardware. Additionally, I'd like to see a per-incident support option, which I don't think they currently provide. I haven’t checked their support options in a while, so I could be mistaken. However, in the past, they only offered annual plans. If I encounter a specific issue, I would prefer the ability to pay a one-time fee for complete support on that particular problem.

The total cost of ownership is great. pfSense is our most recommended appliance for router, firewall, and VPN functionality. 

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

Users don't need to do anything to maintain the system, but I like to check all pfSense instances every few months, install updates, and look for any irregularities. I try to check every single pfSense system if possible. pfSense needs to be manually updated.

We use Netgate pfSense as the next-gen firewall because it has a lot of additional capabilities.

The solution's most valuable features are its ease of use and versatility. You can do anything you want with it. We implemented the solution for better security at better prices.

Netgate pfSense is extremely robust and stable compared to other firewalls.

You can use Netgate pfSense as a very basic firewall or with next-generation capabilities and full monitoring. With the command line and the openness of the platform, you can do a lot of things with the tool.

It is extremely easy to add features to the solution and to configure them. We have extensive monitoring capabilities that we have configured into Netgate pfSense so that we can probably monitor any firewall available. We have also utilized the solution's DNS black holes features.

When configured properly, the solution's data loss prevention capability is absolutely top-notch. We use the solution to monitor and detect users' odd or anomalous behaviors on the network, which are usually malware-related. We also use the tool to protect against various blacklists.

We use Netgate on Amazon and have one of their firewalls. Using pfSense Plus on Amazon EC2 has helped simplify our EC2 network. It has definitely helped us with Amazon and tightening things down there.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities, Netgate pfSense's total cost of ownership has been very good. For your infrastructure, you're typically looking at five to seven years. Netgate pfSense is definitely punching above its weight in that sense because it comes at a lower cost.

Based on our experience, it lives that long and longer than what you would expect. The solution's ROI and longevity do shine in that sense.

The solution's internal logging could be improved. However, it does have some external logging capabilities. It would be more problematic if you didn't have a very robust environment. We developed our own internal API about five to six years ago, but I hear all the time on newsgroups that one of the solution's biggest problems is API.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for over 15 years.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Netgate pfSense is a highly scalable solution. I would say there are at least three of us who are fairly proficient with the solution, almost at an expert level. We have a few others who utilize it, but they're limited in what they can do. Most of our clients for Netgate pfSense are small and medium-sized businesses, but we also have some larger businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability ten out of ten.

The times I've worked with the solution's technical support, they've been excellent.

I rate the solution’s technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

We are in the managed IT space and constantly deal with numerous, big name firewall vendors. Aside from the cost alone, Netgate pfSense provides a lot of benefits. Even if Netgate were the same price as the rest of the other vendors, I would still prefer to use Netgate just because of its ease of use.

The solution's initial setup is very straightforward. There's even a built-in wizard that will take you from out of the box to basic firewall setup in about 9 steps.

The solution's deployment time depends on the complexity of the environment that you're going into. On average, the deployment takes probably less than a day. We have a team involved in the solution's deployment.

We have seen a return on investment with Netgate pfSense. We've won some bids for firewall replacement jobs based on the cost alone.

I think Netgate pfSense is very fairly priced. I think it's a great way to get people locked in by being a little bit cheaper than many other solutions. Once they see it, they wonder why they would use anything else.

One of the features of pfSense Plus is backup capabilities, which didn't really help us because we had our own backup solution built in for several years. We also keep additional firewalls available if something like a storm comes through so that we can restore the configuration in five to ten minutes without too much trouble.

pfSense Plus doesn't provide a lot of features and benefits, but we use it because we want to see them continuing to develop the solution.

Netgate pfSense gives us a single pane of glass management, but we don't live in the firewall itself. We monitor it from our single pane of glass, which we're pulling about 20 other security stack solutions into as well. We're pulling in a lot of other enterprise-level solutions, including EDR, vulnerability scans, domain filtering, etc.

Since we have a few hundred clients, we have both cloud and on-premises deployments of Netgate pfSense.

Any product requires some care and feeding. It goes back to our monitoring aspect. As a general rule, you have some firmware updates about every six months. You definitely have a few things to maintain here and there in Netgate pfSense, but it's minimal compared to other solutions.

The solution's cost alone is well worth it. I would recommend it for its adaptability to any complex environment with added security features. You can start off by just doing a standard firewall and then grow from there and really expand on its security features. I really can't think of any reasons why you wouldn't use it. Netgate pfSense is pretty much all we use, and we use a lot of different vendors when we go to different places.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

My use case involved having a firewall from a different vendor, which was taken over and used as a bot in a network. This incident made me reconsider my firewall provider. 

I integrated pfSense, and I have not encountered any issues since. Initially, I used it as freeware as a virtual box, and it performed well. 

About two and a half years ago, I transitioned to physical boxes. We have more than one. My use case was to connect two offices and create an extended LAN using pfSense for point-to-point connections between the data centers.

I have never had an issue with pfSense, except when attempting to configure it. When left as is, it functions well.

Support is very good.

It is rather flexible.  

Having enterprise support was immensely helpful since I have run into problems using a plugin. Without it, I might have needed to purchase a new box.

I do use pfSense Plus. We had downtime before pfSense. We've never gone down using the solution. We haven't had any performance issues.

I like the plugin systems, even though I feel like I'm playing roulette. I'm not sure if it does what I want it to do or if it will break the original capability of pfSense. Plus, having all of these dependencies may be a liability. While I appreciate their availability and wish to develop my own plugins, time constraints hinder that. 

Since the language used in the documentation is difficult for a non-English speaker, I find it hard to understand. It assumes they understand the words that are used and sometimes I feel I need to get out a dictionary to get handle on what they are talking about. They need to simplify the language a little bit. 

Using a plugin for reverse proxy allows multiple URLs to listen on port 80, rather than a single IP address for multiple servers, however, this requires changing the default port of pfSense. When I changed the default port, I experienced difficulty accessing the device. I thought my password was incorrect, when in fact, the port change was the issue. I had to connect to the physical device using a special cable. While I found this surprising, I am too paranoid to use SSH due to its perceived vulnerability.

We're a security company. We provide solutions to prevent hacking. pfSense is really good at preventing outside access; however, as an attacker, there are endless opportunities to attack. There's no way for me to know who or what pfSense is blocking or preventing. pfSense doesn't tell you any information.

I've been using the solution for two to three years. 

I receive popup notifications indicating that we have run out of memory due to some unknown reason, despite using only 20% of the device's memory. I am unsure of the cause. There is nobody that can give me a good answer to this issue. Occasionally, I receive emails from sales about updates, however, sometimes, the device does not detect these updates.

We have not reached the point where it becomes stressed. Our device isn't that big in terms of size since we don't have a lot of big users. No one has complained of buffering or response times. Our internet is likely slower than our pfSense. 

I was really happy having enterprise support when issues arose. Without this support, I probably would have bought a new box.

We have premium support. It helps me as I didn't feel comfortable with all of the responsibility. It's helped us with tech IDs and getting into the system when there have been issues. 

Positive

Management provides a budget for purchases. Initially, I bought a product based on appealing flyers and sales promises. However, after purchase, I realized it was not as secure as anticipated. I liked that pfSense started off as partially open-source. We trusted the technology.

We don't do cloud services. We have an on-premies setup and wanted to use pfSense in our on-premises cloud. It works really well and we are very comfortable with it. We do a lot of research with nasty malware and have not seen anything able to hack it yet. We've done so many deployments that we're very comfortable with the setup and capabilities.

You just power it on and follow the Wizard. If somebody has never done any firewalls, they should do what the tech says.

I'm the only person that is allowed to touch it and I'm the only one with access. We have four sites and no issues. We've abused one of the plugins, the pfBlocker, that has a subscription URL that can get malicious actors and help us block their IP. We can update the firewall rules almost in real-time. That's the basic maintenance we do. It's mostly automated.

There are occasional updates, and we get notices. Sometimes, the devices do not see the update, and I get paranoid that it's a phishing attempt. I'm not sure of this is a bug or not. 

If instructed by my boss, I can complete tasks within four hours, adhering to pfSense's SLA. I don't mind being challenged. 

Monetary concerns are not my focus; I cannot justify saving on the firewall for personal expenses. 

I would recommend the solution to other users, including potential government clients. I've invited others to try and hack it, to showcase how robust it is, and no one can. It's impressing people. They're saying, "I need to get one of those."

I would rate the overall product seven out of ten. I'm stressed out by the documentation. I do have an interest in doing a pfSense certification course. The documentation is holding me back from giving me a ten. 

I have two installations at schools as firewalls. The biggest drivers for using pfSense were cost-effectiveness and functionality. It offers higher functionality for its cost.

The benefits are fairly obvious at the beginning. There's no specific time frame required. The flexibility and consistency of the product are what draw me to it, regardless of the size or capacity of the operation. It's easy to deploy.

Arguably, the use of products like Suricata for intrusion prevention could help prevent data loss.

It gives a single pane of glass for each individual device, but not across multiple devices. pfSense could catch up with other market providers by offering a view across multiple devices, but the current interface is fine. It is just we have to individually manage each one. 

There are two versions of pfSense, the paid "Plus" version and the free "Community Edition." I use the "Plus" paid version. 

The way pfSense handles system updates is pretty good. The updates are virtually transparent to any downtime. I've had pfSense boxes running for 200 to 300 days with no downtime. From a software standpoint, pfSense is about as bulletproof as it comes.

pfSense provides visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions. Its reporting is effective. The data is effective in making decisions based on traffic. It is not just one feature, it is how we manage data traffic. It provides adequate information to make decisions based on traffic. 

I have used pfSense in virtualized environments, just not on AWS.

It allows me flexibility in hardware size and capabilities while maintaining the exact same interfaces and controls. 

I also like the fact that based on its operating system, it has applications that can be added, such as IDS/IPS and filtering.

I would like to see a single pane of glass for multiple devices.

From a service provider standpoint, it is a bulletproof operation to deploy. Aside from being able to manage and monitor multiple devices from a single pane of glass, that would be the only thing I would change.

I've used pfSense, probably for the last two or three years off and on.

It's one of the most bulletproof solutions out there. I can't recall a problem where the system locked up or had any issue that required intervention to get it started back up again. 

Aside from possibly a hardware failure, I haven't had any problems. And that's not the software.

Scalability is one of the reasons why it's a good product. You can utilize it in a budget-friendly way as well as a full-on enterprise. pfSense is almost infinitely scalable. Obviously, hardware is the dictating factor.

I have never had a reason to contact customer service and support. 

I've used Unifi products, DrayTek products, and Meraki products.

From a capability standpoint, I would put pfSense at the top of functionality. DrayTek comes close; however, it lacks the add-on applications. So, I would put pfSense at the top. 

I build the machines myself. Their hardware is not overly special, and I think it's overpriced, so, I build my own.

It's easy to deploy them, but then I've worked with them for a while. If I reflect back at the very beginning, there is a bit of a learning curve, but I don't think it's that steep. Overall, it's fairly easy.

It's fairly easy to add and configure features in pfSense, though it depends on the application. So, it is moderately easy. Some are simple, while others require a lot of preplanning and time to configure.

One person can deploy it, but the deployment time varies because it depends on the network design. It can be up and running in ten or fifteen minutes, but configuring it for the network design may take longer.  

Not much maintenance is required from the end user. Netgate pfSense do a very good job of keeping the application and operating system up to date by itself. Occasionally, applications require updates that need manual intervention, but for the most part, updates can almost be automated.

pfSense's pricing or licensing model is very affordable. Netgate hardware is a bit overpriced, but the software itself is arguably underpriced.

I have not come across a more effective product. Unifi products are inexpensive but not feature-rich by any stretch of the imagination. From a pure feature standpoint, hands down, I would argue that Meraki is as capable and comparable in features, but the cost is prohibitive for most small businesses.

From a pure feature-function standpoint, pfSense has the best total cost of ownership, once it's installed, I don't have any problems with it. If taking into account the software licensing, the hardware, and the amount of time it takes to manage, I'm not sure there's a better TCO on the market.

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