Netgate pfSense Reviews

I use the solution in my company since we operate as a managed services provider that provides security solutions to our customers. I was looking for a device that had the required features my customer wanted, and that fit their budget, so Netgate pfSense is a product that clearly fits this space. Our company has started to deploy the tool for our customers.

In terms of the benefits of the tool for my organization, I am not an end user of the product. My customers use the tool, and what they have been able to achieve using Netgate pfSense is that they are better able to control their spending on internet services. Without Netgate pfSense, users can just take up the whole bandwidth from the network and make it difficult for other people to work, but with the bandwidth control feature, including the built-in functionalities in the solution, you can control what individual IP addresses on the network can do, thereby bringing in more control. My customers have even told their other MSPs how they need to increase their bandwidth, whereas what they needed to do was just control what they already had in Netgate pfSense. Controlling the bandwidth has brought savings to my customers, and it also helped them to have a better user experience with the internet services that they were purchasing.

The solution's most valuable feature is that it is a highly configurable tool. The tool has a lot of options, so there is literally nothing you cannot do with it, but you have to know your way around the product.

The problems my company's clients wanted to resolve by implementing Netgate pfSense were that they wanted a provision for enterprise network security, static control over load balancing, and failover. This area is typically the use case for our customers.

If I assess Netgate pfSense's flexibility, I would say that it is a highly configurable tool, which means there are many options. It has a lot of flexibility in terms of configuration. You can write different rule sets for different traffic types and scenarios. On the same firewall, you could have lots of variety in how you want to handle traffic.

If I want to add features to Netgate pfSense, I would say that because the structure is modular, there is an app store where you can download whatever feature sets you want but are not included by default in the tool. The tool also supports many third-party plug-ins. It is possible to add features to the tool.

Netgate pfSense provides a single pane of glass for management with a customizable dashboard. You can customize the dashboard. Any handy modules you want are possible on a dashboard with a single-view window where you can see what is going on, and it is customizable.

The single pane of glass management feature has an impact on operations since it simplifies management because, typically, my company is not on the customers' premises, so we need to have remote access to the firewall. The people who are doing the back-end monitoring have a single view, which makes operations easy because, with one single glance, you can tell if there is a challenge or not in the tool.

Netgate pfSense Plus is what came on the device that my customers purchased by default.

In terms of whether Netgate pfSense Plus helps minimize downtime, I would say that the main difference between Netgate pfSense and Netgate pfSense Plus is the availability of enterprise support. When I have issues or bugs, I have someone to go to and say that something is not working and ask what we can do about it, after which I can get a response. When it comes to Netgate pfSense and Netgate pfSense Plus, the software is almost the same. One of the versions comes with enterprise backing, so I have some support and OEM support instead of relying on the community. I have a proper company I could talk to about any challenges my customers and I may have. The support does help reduce the downtime. I haven't actually had any downtime with the tool on my customers' end. I haven't had any downtime using the tool.

In terms of whether Netgate pfSense provides visibility that enables my company's clients or me to make data-driven decisions if we don't speak of specific use cases, I would say that it is typically a next-generation firewall that does bandwidth control and provides IPS and IDS features. For instance, if my customers wanted to have an idea of how much internet traffic they are using, then Netgate pfSense would give you graphs that you can export and do further analysis. I don't think the tool's use cases are tied to data or data analysis.

I can’t get any area where improvements are needed in the tool off the top of my head. I haven't had any challenges I couldn't resolve between myself and the support. Maybe Netgate needs to see if a medium-level Netgate pfSense Plus can be created for smaller organizations.

Most of what I need is already in the tool. If there is any need associated with it, I will be sure to report it to the support team.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for two and a half years. My company serves as an MSP for Netgate pfSense.

The only area to consider is that sometimes when there is an upgrade, there may be some changes. But when you have uploaded a stable version of the firmware, the operating system, I think it is a very stable tool. I have not had any issues around stability. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I deal with clients in areas such as residential, government organizations, and medium-scale businesses. I have one customer in each category, which includes small, medium, and large businesses.

Normally, when it comes to the size of hardware before you make a purchase, due diligence is required to see that the device would be able to handle the current requirements and have some room for growth. With the solution itself, I don't see the need to discuss questions related to its scalability because that would be a function of the hardware and the size of the network where you are deploying the tool. Typically, if you have a huge network, you need to make sure that you have the equipment that can handle that volume of traffic from the on-site. The scalability aspect is not really a good assessment criterion to use to measure the tool. If I put things into a certain context and say that we have a network that has around 100 people, then you don't put up a device that can manage 100 people. Instead, you need to get a device that can manage 150 to 200 people, and then you can create room for growth. If you don't follow these steps, you will have to change the device after some time.

The solution's technical support team is okay. They respond quickly. I have only had the need to place two support calls in all of my dealings so far, and they were able to figure out my issues and resolve them very quickly. I rate the technical support a seven to eight out of ten.

In our company, we typically deploy a mix of security products that we prefer. At our organization, we have Sophos, Fortinet, and Netgate pfSense. Sophos, Fortinet, and Netgate pfSense are pretty standard. Netgate pfSense has all of the features that Sophos and Fortinet have, but what is more, it can be used without having to have separate licensing. Netgate pfSense really beats the other tools hands down in terms of price because there are no individual license costs for the features that you want to use. In Sophos, certain features require separate licensing. Netgate pfSense's advantages over other tools in price make it a top choice over the others. In our company, we have some customers who are particular about products, and for such customers, we provide them with what they request. For those who don't mind trying something different, Netgate pfSense is our default choice.

The product's initial setup phase is straightforward. The complexities in the deployment are produced by customers who do not know exactly what they want. Some customers have requirements, and my company needs to sit with them and streamline certain areas. The integration and the configuration are not the challenges associated with the tool.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

Typically, if all the configuration information is available, the tool can be deployed in a maximum of two to three days. One can have the standard installation done. The deployment procedure can be done assuming one day for the configuration and the second day for rack mounting. The process is quick when the customer has all of the information they want configured in hand. For some of them, the tool is typically deployed over a period of a few weeks because they don't know or have not decided how they want to implement a particular feature. Still, it would not be a delay from Netgate pfSense's end but rather a delay from the customer side.

I would not call it a cheap tool, but it is very cost-efficient. I don't see any product that gives you the same functionality within the same price brackets offered by Netgate pfSense. There is hardly any need to go to the open-source firewalls, especially with the ones that are coming back, and there are no enterprise security products in the price range that Netgate pfSense falls under.

If I assess the total cost of ownership of Netgate pfSense, I rate it as an eight or nine out of ten.

I don't use Netgate pfSense Plus on Amazon EC2 VMs, and I haven't had a customer who wanted to deploy the tool on the cloud. Most of them purchase and install their hardware directly from Netgate.

The maintenance of the tool's equipment is done once or twice a year just to blow out some dust and make sure it looks physically okay, which is nothing outside of what the regular network devices require. It doesn't require any special maintenance.

I would recommend Netgate pfSense because it is one of the products that my company markets to our customers.

As I have existing customers that use the solution, they serve as a reference point for my new customer. I tell others that I have deployed Netgate pfSense in a few official organizations, their use, and the problems that it has solved for them. I have case studies to speak about. If someone wants to go for a proof of concept, it is something that is doable.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use pfSense as the primary firewall for our data center. 

We have a high availability setup, so we have had no downtime. PfSense gives us metrics about how the firewalls perform in terms of CPU, memory, etc., but I don't think it tells us how to address it. If we have an issue, we can always open a support ticket.

I find pfSense easy to use and configure. We have a high-availability pair, so if one has issues, it will failover to the other automatically. Overall, it's been pretty easy to build VPN tunnels and functions like that.

I don't think pfSense is as good about monitoring as it could be. There are logs, but they're kind of hard to get to. You need to send it to a log monitoring system. It's good about monitoring and learning this. You'll get an alert if there's an issue with the firewall itself, but it's not detecting security attacks. 

PfSense has the bare necessities essentially, but it isn't an advanced firewall that protects against layer 7 attacks or DDoS. It's not on the same level as Palo Alto, for instance. You can add some higher-level security features, but it doesn't do that out of the box. Maybe there's another functoin we can add to it, but it feels like it's not catching more advanced attacks.

We've used pfSense for around five years.

The stability has been great. We've rarely had any issues that have caused a failover. When we do, the failover has made it. I don't think we've experienced any real impact from it that caused any product issues. 

While we've added more IP addresses and traffic, there are some limits to its scalability. We've run into this before with graphical issues. We opened a ticket about that, and they said they found a bug that they were looking into. 

I think we're going to get close to reaching a limit with the mid-to-lower-end models at some point. The scalability is good but probably not great.

Their response has been excellent. Sometimes we've opened a ticket, and we've gotten a response back right, other times it took an hour or so. They're responsive now. 

In terms of the quality of their answers, they have been good to great. 

Positive

At previous companies,  I have worked with Cisco and Palo Alto firewalls. Palo Alto is probably a better firewall because it does more blocking. It's also quite a bit more expensive. For what you get, a Netgate pfSense solution is a highly cost-effective firewall.

It was in place when I joined the company, so I wasn't involved in the deployment. It requires some maintenance, like adding new firewall rules or VPN connections. We also upgrade it once or twice a year. 

Including the support costs and the hardware, I think pfSense is reasonably priced. It's very affordable. The total cost of ownership is favorable. We've had a hardware device that lasted over five years, and they're still doing well. We're able to buy at least software support for them.

I rate Netgate pfSense seven out of 10. If you have an enterprise environment, I recommend having two for high availability. Make sure you purchase and keep up with the software support in case there are any issues. Those are the two biggest things that helped us out. 

We use pfSense as the main office gateway for firewall router access and OpenVPN for remote access.

We wanted to move up to a much more modern integrated system. Before adopting pfSense, we had an old basic router firewall that was starting to get long in the tooth. PfSense gave us more capabilities to monitor and set firewall rules appropriately and have all of the remote login capabilities with two-factor authentication.

I'm much happier because I don't need to see as much stuff in the logs. PfSense is blocking so much of that, and I feel more secure about it. We needed two-factor authentication for node access, and that's been a massive improvement. Also, allowing the staff to access the network remotely and use those applications has certainly helped. It made us more confident in what the firewalls were doing and gave us better controls on remote access. It adds another layer of protection for us.

The solution gives us a single pane of glass management for probably 99 percent of it. I don't need additional network infrastructure to handle the required jobs. The ability to back up previous installations, snapshot them, and go back to them if I break something has helped eliminate downtime. That's handy in terms of getting things up again. 

PfSense Plus helps us optimize performance. We can identify pieces that aren't performing as they should and lock them down or reconfigure functions inside. Our ability to see what's going on with the network has improved quite a bit. 

Remote access with two-factor authentication was a big one for us. Pulling in things like Endpoint NG to monitor traffic has been quite helpful. The pfBlocker has been good. It helps us limit who's trying to bash away at access to the systems.

PfSense has been flexible for us. It's done everything we've asked for. Adding plugins is pretty easy. You go into the little application section and install what you want. The documentation that they have online is certainly helpful. Most things are open source, so you can usually find additional notes about problems. 

One or two of the plugins didn't do what I wanted them to do. Maybe that was a misunderstanding or it's not quite ready yet. Sometimes, it's hard to wrap my head around the way the firewall rules work. 

It has been about a year since we purchased pfSense.

I rate pfSense nine out of 10 for stability. I've only had it lose its brains on me once. That was probably me just configuring something, getting lost, and going around in circles.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for scalability. It's got plenty of scalability, and we're not pushing it unusually hard. 

I rate Netgate support nine out of 10. I've used them a couple of times, and they're prompt in responding. If the issue is outside their purview, they can point you to where you can get the information. Most of my questions had to do with third-party plugins more than the core Netgate infrastructure, which has worked fine.

Positive

It's a bit of work to initially set up virtual networks inside the office, and we have to add several staff members to the various servers and create additional firewall rules. This is a little bit. It isn't simple for a business with lots and lots of internal stuff, but it wasn't hard, either. 

It took a couple of days to get it online, but we spent a week tweaking it until we were fully happy. We needed one and a half people to deploy it. Other people on the network had to help with the configuration.

We've seen a return in the form of time saved. I can rely on it, get the nice logs out of it, and see what's happening. It saves me about 5 percent.

PfSense is reasonable for a business but a little pricey for home use. With the time savings and reliability, it pays for itself. I've been more than happy with the unit we've gotten here for the capacity we need. However, it'd be nice to have nice to have some nice home units that aren't a thousand dollars.

I rate Netgate pfSense nine out of 10. I would recommend it for business use cases. It's not appropriate for someone in a home environment, but it's good for business. 

I use Netgate pfSense in my home lab and company. I wanted to learn more about networking so I swapped my ISP router with Netgate pfSense.

Netgate pfSense is a flexible solution. Netgate has its appliances but if I want to use pfSense somewhere else, I can install it into a virtual machine or on my hardware.

I would rate the ease of adding features to Netgate pfSense eight out of ten.

Netgate pfSense has improved the traffic visibility of the devices we are monitoring. Netgate pfSense has also taught me a lot about networking because I got to use an enterprise-grade firewall.

pfSense Plus helps minimize downtime thanks to its ZFS snapshotting feature. This means if we misconfigure something, we can quickly restore our system to a previous working state, reducing downtime.

Both pfSense Plus and the community edition provide visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions.

Netgate pfSense has provided a reduction in downtime of 30 percent thanks to its user-friendly configuration process.

The most valuable features of Netgate pfSense are the ease of use and GUI. 

pfSense's dashboard offers basic monitoring, but it lacks centralized management for multiple PSM devices and a unified event interface for various services. Ideally, I'd like a management interface that can handle multiple PSMs, even if they're in different locations. This interface should provide at least status information and basic management features.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for three years.

I would rate the stability of Netgate pfSense nine out of ten. While I did encounter some issues earlier on, they have all since been resolved. 

Netgate pfSense is scalable. While we haven't used features like the rack-mounted version or maxed out its capabilities, the system is easily scalable. Upgrading to a more powerful model is simple - just export our settings and import them to the new device.

I had to use the technical support twice and they were extremely quick to respond and deal with my issues.

Positive

While I previously switched from UniFi to pfSense for its wider range of features, the gap between them has narrowed somewhat. However, pfSense remains a more enterprise-focused option, allowing for granular control over specific network elements useful in complex environments. UniFi, on the other hand, offers a less detailed view.

While the initial setup was mostly straightforward, some specific configurations proved challenging and lacked intuitiveness. To address these, I consulted YouTube videos and Netgate's documentation.

I would rate the ease of the setup process a seven out of ten.

Installing pfSense took a full day.

I implemented pfSense myself.

pfSense has definitely paid off for me. It's become a rock-solid foundation for my network. Since the memory leak fixes, it's been incredibly stable and requires minimal maintenance.

While pfSense hardware from Netgate might have a higher upfront cost, I've had very little trouble with it. Plus, buying from them directly helps fund the software's development, making it a worthwhile investment in my eyes.

pfSense offers a reasonable total cost of ownership for me. Since I primarily use it at home, I don't need additional features or paid support. However, compared to commercial options like SonicWall, even support costs seem affordable. It's worth noting that advanced features like Suricato or Snort require additional subscriptions for business use, but overall, pfSense remains a cost-effective solution.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

pfSense handles both my home lab, suitable for a small household, and our company's branch office with roughly 150 on-site users and 50 remote VPN connections. It also facilitates a site-to-site VPN connection between this branch and our main New York office.

pfSense is low-maintenance. While regular updates are important, I typically won't need to perform much additional maintenance beyond occasional logins to check the dashboard and install those updates.

pfSense is a stable and feature-rich firewall, but it lacks  Layer 7 application filtering, which means you can't easily block specific applications. While I haven't personally needed this feature, it's a known gap in pfSense's functionality.

I recommend pfSense overall to others.

One of our clients operates multiple branches, and we've implemented a solution involving feature and IP address tunnels connecting these branches. The main branch serves as the hub, housing the Central PBX and providing services to the other branches.

We use pfSense to handle VPN connections, extending to remote workers in our various branches as well.

The feature I find most valuable for fulfilling network security requirements is pfBlockerNG. It offers exceptional visibility and filtering capabilities, without the need for dedicated hardware or recurring expenses. Unlike other solutions, pfBlockerNG operates seamlessly and continuously without additional costs or maintenance concerns.

The traffic shaping and bandwidth management features of pfSense significantly enhance our network performance. The inclusion of a QoS wizard simplifies the process, eliminating the complexity often associated with configuring QoS on other platforms like Cisco routers. With pfSense, utilizing the wizard streamlines the setup process, making it accessible and effective for users without requiring an advanced understanding of networking intricacies.

There have been specific incidents where the reporting and monitoring tools of pfSense played a crucial role in identifying and resolving network issues. In one instance, we received complaints about internet connectivity problems affecting productivity across the business. Upon investigation, I discovered that the issue stemmed from excessive bandwidth consumption caused by multiple HD camera streams being watched simultaneously. Utilizing pfSense's reporting and monitoring tools, I quickly pinpointed the source of the problem and implemented measures to alleviate the network congestion. These tools are invaluable for identifying resource-intensive processes and resolving performance issues effectively.

The process of integrating pfSense with other tools and services has proven to be quite straightforward thus far. While there may be a slight learning curve at the outset, particularly for those less familiar with networking concepts, it becomes manageable with experience.

The most valuable feature, for instance, is the ease of migrating configurations between different Netgate devices housed in the same box. This capability simplifies troubleshooting, as it allows for faster identification of DNS discrepancies or any other issues compared to proprietary systems. With pfSense, network configurations adhere to standard practices, facilitating troubleshooting without the need for complex overlays or policies. The interface, prioritizes network principles, making it intuitive for those familiar with networking concepts to navigate and achieve desired outcomes efficiently.

It lacks a solution for SD-WAN integration. I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial. Partnering with trusted antivirus providers such as Bitdefender or Sophos as an add-on feature could enhance the antivirus capabilities of pfSense. Incorporating a centralized management console for easier administration would be a valuable addition.

I have been working with it for over five years.

The stability of pfSense is exceptional. I've only encountered one instance of hardware failure, which was due to an electrical issue. Otherwise, all other deployments have been reliable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The scalability of pfSense is impressive. I've witnessed its capabilities firsthand, especially when it was deployed in environments supporting up to seven thousand employees. I would rate it nine out of ten. Currently, pfSense is our top recommendation for clients, tailored to their budget and specific requirements. Depending on the client's needs, such as compliance with PCI or HIPAA regulations, we may suggest models that offer corresponding features and evaluations of network security. This flexibility allows us to cater to clients with varying compliance needs, ensuring they receive suitable recommendations.

In terms of technical support, I primarily rely on the forums whenever I have a question or need technical information. I've found that the answers I seek are often readily available there. While pfSense does offer paid support packages, I haven't had the opportunity to utilize them yet.

The main difference between Fortinet and pfSense lies in their integration with different vendors. While pfSense offers integration with multiple commercial antivirus solutions, Fortinet primarily provides its own antivirus offering. However, the effectiveness of the antivirus provided by pfSense may not be as high as some other options available in the market. In terms of cost, pfSense offers a one-time payment for cloud services, providing continuous service without ongoing fees. On the other hand, Fortinet's pricing structure may seem appealing initially, but if you wait until close to the license expiration date, the renewal cost significantly increases, which could result in unexpectedly high expenses.

The initial setup was straightforward.

To set up pfSense, you start by configuring firewall rules to allow the necessary traffic. Once that's done, you can explore and download additional security packages from the package manager to enhance your environment's security. The initial setup is quick, typically taking around ten minutes for a basic configuration. However, if you're integrating features like pfBlockerNG, it may take a bit longer as you need to ensure you're not inadvertently blocking any essential services. Despite this, the task can be managed by a single person, such as an IT manager.

Maintenance tasks, such as checking logs and ensuring updates are running smoothly, are typically handled by two designated individuals. They connect to the firewall periodically to perform these checks. While we do have a management console, it's not fully integrated with the pfSense Manager (PSM) solution. Having a dedicated management console that allows remote management of all wireless devices would be ideal, as it would streamline the process of making changes across multiple devices.

The price point is highly competitive. The cost varies depending on the license type, such as licenses for eight to five support or twenty-four seven support. Opting for twenty-four-seven support significantly increases the price, reaching around ten thousand to thirteen hundred dollars. I would rate it four out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

I've set up Netgate pfSense for my friend's law practice for his access to VPN after the AT&T service dropped their FortiGate. It was so much easier to use. The VPN and VLAN support I needed that Meraki and AT&T tried to give me was crap. I also use Netgate pfSense at home as my router or office network.

I also have the tool set up for a remote person in Texas for a site-to-site VPN when she needs it to do some work. I've currently got three of them that I use personally and professionally.

I love the solution's flexibility. You can buy their hardware, get support, and use other people's hardware. Netgate is constantly releasing patches and updates, which is nice. There is also tons of free material on the web and on YouTube on how to set it up.

We saw the benefits of Netgate pfSense within weeks of deploying it because it gave me the ability to segment my network quickly. It was pretty straightforward and much easier than some of the competitors out there.

Netgate pfSense gives me a single pane of glass management. It gives me everything I need with regard to the firewall.

Netgate pfSense Plus provides features that help us minimize downtime. The ability to do high availability and failover of LAN links is a nice feature.

The visibility that pfSense Plus provides helps us optimize performance. I can see traffic analysis and tune it a little better.

I'd say the solution's total cost of ownership will replace itself within a year. The stability of being able to download a different package if someone needs it has made my life a lot easier.

Some of the functions are not menu-driven. You have to know to click here, then go over to this setting and click here. 

It would be nice if the solution had a wizard for some of the complex functions. When trying to walk people through something, I have to look at the video or read their document.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for three years.

I haven't had any stability issues with Netgate pfSense. The tool might get bogged down if I add more things. I still reboot mine once a month. Other than that, I haven't had any crashes.

It'd be nice if I could add memory to their appliances to improve their performance. Scalability, to me, is really another hardware device. I haven't seen an option to change the hardware.

The solution's technical support team is very responsive. Regarding the quality of their answers, the support team is excellent and very knowledgeable.

Positive

We had the FortiGate firewall that AT&T was providing, which they discontinued. Unfortunately, their replacement was less compatible than the FortiGate, so we jumped to Netgate pfSense. We were doing managed services at AT&T. I dumped their managed service at my firewall because Netgate pfSense was so easy to use.

Since I've been in IT for years, the solution's initial setup is simple for me. If you have a device that doesn't have a keyboard and you're using a serial console, it's a little bit kludgy on what to do. You can figure it out if you read the documents ahead of time.

Deploying the solution for my home use took me about a day and a half. It was all about design and learning all the functions. Deploying the solution for the business took me about two weeks because I had to figure out all the rules. Software-wise, it was easy, but we had to figure out what the customer wanted.

The solution's pricing is comparable to other products. The basic plan provides the support I need.

Depending on what you're trying to do, adding and configuring features to Netgate pfSense is somewhere in the middle between easy and difficult. Some things are really simple, while others are difficult.

Remembering everything you have to do is challenging because sometimes you have to click somewhere, and then you don't remember where you clicked. So, it'd be nice if everything was better tied together.

I initially started with the free version on third-party hardware, and then they discontinued it, so I just bought the appliance.

I prefer to do manual updates myself, but the solution lets me know if there's an update. I regularly do firmware updates when they are available.

The solution provides great support, articles, and a lot of documents.

New users should document what they want to do upfront and then try to look at all the documents on the Netgate site. My biggest advice would be not to try to do it cold. If you're going to use the VLANs, figure out all that information for your routing. If you don't have a document, you won't be able to implement it very easily.

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

My company uses Netgate pfSense firewall routers for some clients, but I choose the device based on their needs. For locations like restaurants that require constant internet, I use a different device with cellular failover built-in. The cost-effective Netgate pfSense is a good option in simpler locations like doctors' offices. I can leverage Netgate's ability to handle multiple ISPs for clients with large internet demands. Ultimately, the choice depends on the client's budget and specific requirements.

In my role, I decide what our clients should implement for their network security. I want to create a secure environment by separating the business network from the Wi-Fi and phone networks. To achieve this separation, pfSense uses different subnets to effectively block any incoming traffic attempting unauthorized access to the network.

pfSense is highly configurable, offering flexibility to tailor its features and functionality to each client's network needs.

pfSense offers a wide range of plugins and add-ons, making initial configuration straightforward. However, since I primarily rely on endpoint security products installed on clients' workstations for their overall protection, my pfSense setup focuses on basic functionality. This includes configuring the firewall for my in-house network and leveraging its ability to handle multiple WAN connections. Ultimately, pfSense's affordability and ease of use make it a great choice for me as a secure and customizable router/firewall solution.

Network segmentation offers the biggest benefit for my clients. By creating separate Wi-Fi, phone systems, and business network segments, I can isolate any security breaches and prevent them from spreading throughout the entire network. As the decision-maker, I prioritize client security without needing them to understand the technical details. My focus is ensuring their networks are secure.

I have never had any downtime using pfSense Plus.

The most valuable features of pfSense are its ability to segment networks, create different subnets, create different VLANs, and use the VPN, as well as its affordability.  

pfSense lacks a centralized web dashboard for viewing all my clients' pfSense dashboards. A single pane of glass for both web access and management would be a game-changer. This missing interface is my biggest frustration with pfSense, and improvement is sorely needed. I have clients all over the United States and would deploy many more pfSense firewalls if it had a centralized web dashboard.

I started installing Netgate pfSense for clients almost three years ago.

I would rate the stability of Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

We've worked with almost every firewall: SonicWall, Cradlepoint, Ubiquiti, Fortinet, and UniFi devices. You get into the licensing of some of those with SonicWall and Fortinet, and it's just not the product that I like to sell to my clients. I'm always client-friendly. I want to find the most affordable product for them that does the best job. NetGate pfSense is the right one for some but not for others.

The deployment is simple. We preconfigure the device in the shop and then take it out and hook it up in less than one hour.

We have three people total who deploy the firewalls, including myself.

Netgate pfSense is a set-and-forget product other than deploying and periodically updating the firmware. pfSense has been solid for me.

Unlike many firewalls that require annual licensing fees, making them expensive for small businesses, pfSense is an affordable option.

I would rate Netgate pfSense seven out of ten. The only area of improvement is the web dashboard, which is currently lacking in pfSense.

I use other products to control data security. Most of my clients don't have an in-house server. I work with small businesses, and that's why the Netgate pfSense device works well. For my larger clients, we go to the cloud for data storage and data security with redundancy. So, I don't use pfSense for data security at all.

pfSense is a good value for some clients; it's client-specific. It depends upon other things we are deploying there, such as what kind of Wi-Fi network we use. If we are adding a VoIP phone system. It just depends on what the client's needs are, but It is the right device for the right client.

A lot of our clients are small businesses. I've got one fairly large business. It is a restaurant group nationwide with 700 employees, but its main office has maybe 30 to 50 employees. So, that's probably my largest deployment of the Netgate device.

The only maintenance required for the pfSense firewalls is applying the occasional firmware updates.

Some MSPs are more focused on making money. I'm not. I'm focused on the right fit for the client, and the money takes care of itself. pfSense is a great device. I'm not focused on what will make me money. I'm focused on what is best for the client. In many decisions, the Netgate pfSense is the right decision for that client.

We are a reseller. We resell the product to our customers as we are an MSP. We use it for various different verticals, from manufacturing to schools to typical offices. That is mainly the use of this solution.

There are a lot of limitations with competitors like WatchGuard and SonicWall where there are a lot of costs for licenses to utilize their products. We felt that by going to pfSense, we have a little bit more freedom. We can use certain features without having to pay exorbitant costs for licensing. It is better for the small to medium-sized customers.

They are the most flexible, for sure. In my experience, it is quite easy to add features to pfSense and configure them. There is a lot of support from the local community. Because it is an open-community-built platform, there is a lot of support out there. Adding features and configuring them seems to be quite simple from my experience so far.

There is an overall performance increase. The hardware is much more performance-driven. The constant upgrades certainly make it easier to keep up with the evolving environment. The community-driven platform certainly helps to ensure that things are kept current.

pfSense gives us a single pane of glass management. There is a user interface and also the command line. The user interface is very friendly and easy to navigate. The single pane of glass management certainly increases productivity. The ability to look at one single pane of glass, add different widgets, and see things at a glance certainly helps to cut down the time of looking for certain statuses or things like that. It makes things more efficient.

We deal with pfSense Plus in a few cases. It can help minimize downtime. We have not experienced it in any sort of live environment, but I am confident that it would.

pfSense Plus provides visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions.

It optimizes performance, and in most cases, it affects operations and makes things more efficient. Efficiency means money.

The ability to utilize the features instead of having to pay a license fee for every single thing that you want to use on a firewall is valuable. A lot of other companies give you a firewall out of the box that has very basic functionality, whereas pfSense gives you all the good features, and if you want to have more advanced features, you can pay a fee. You are able to use a lot of the features that you cannot use on other products. That is the best thing.

It is very good from a troubleshooting perspective. Things like logging are very good. We have been using these firewalls with filtering very successfully, and VPN has been very successful on them. We have not had any issues with that.

One thing that stuck out to me was the move to use plastic chassis on the Netgate devices or products. They are moving away from using metal chassis, and I find that the plastic seems to get hotter than the metal. Other than that, they are such great devices. They always seem to have all the cool things and bells and whistles.

One thing I would like to see Netgate do is to have a cloud-based management portal, similar to SonicWall, WatchGuard, Ubiquiti, etc. With all these platforms, you create an account, and you have a way to cloud-manage these products. Currently, one of the challenges that we face is not being able to manage those things from a centralized platform. It has always been one thing I have dreamt of for Netgate. That is the only place where it falls short. Apart from that, they are far superior in building, keeping up with the times, and keeping things current.

It has been probably eight or nine years.

A couple of times we have had some strange issues that have been unexplainable, but overall, it is stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability.

It is scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for scalability.

They have been fantastic. I have never had an issue, and it has always been very good. They are a highly intelligent and very resourceful team. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We have used everything, such as Cisco, SonicWall, and WatchGuard. You name the flavor. We have used them all, and Netgate is definitely a much better product than those. It also depends on the use cases. 

It has been very straightforward to very complex. We have set up entire data centers run by Netgate devices to small offices using a 2100. We have gone from the most complex to the least complex. We have seen everything in between.

Its deployment is a matter of hours. Our clients are small to medium size. We have about ten people working with pfSense.

It requires general maintenance. We have to keep up with firmware and updates. From a physical perspective, there is no maintenance.

It is very cost-effective. There is 100% ROI.

They are on the higher end, but you do not get stuck with spending thousands of dollars every year. You do not have recurring license costs to have people use a simple feature like VPN. That makes it more cost-effective in the long term. There is a very good price point. No one ever complained, and I have not ever thought that they were overpriced. That is for sure.

If you are looking to deploy a product that is reliable and high-performing and that is going to be cost-effective for yourself or your customer in the long term, you are doing the right thing by looking at Netgate.

I would rate Netgate pfSense a ten out of ten.

We use pfSense for firewall, ad-blocking, and IPS functions. We have two pfSense instances on Dell hardware, and one exclusively does IPS/IDS. I have the firewall features turned off on that. The other use case is for the firewall features, reporting, and VPN.

The first benefit is that pfSense offers an affordable firewall solution. It's open source and available on any platform. If you wanted to pull an old machine out of your garage, you could set up a pretty decent pfSense installation. Having learned a little more about pfSense and some of the additional packages that can be bolted onto pfSense, I've used it now for quite a few different things.

I haven't had any particular instances where I felt I was under attack or the firewall was somehow inadequate. I feel very comfortable that this will do everything to protect data. The initial deployment was positive, and we started seeing the benefits within a couple of hours.

The pfSense Plus has vetted rules and software releases from Netgate. Having that extra layer of accountability from Netgate with the Plus features is a positive. 

I like the VPN features. We use WireGuard, which is part of the pfSense package. That was easy to set up, so I could connect to other customer sites seamlessly. Is there such a thing as being too flexible? It's a highly flexible platform, especially regarding support for third-party packages. It's almost like you're overfilling your grocery cart, and items are all falling on the floor. You can add too much to it. 

The single pane of glass management could be better. For example, it relies on several additional packages to provide some of the features advertised as part of its capabilities, but those packages are not visible directly through the initial pfSense dashboard. 

It is easy to add features, but configuring them takes a lot of knowledge. I would like to see an additional wizard added to pfSense when you add some of their other packages. You can add a package from pfSense to do a particular task, but you need to be a product expert or willing to spend time on the Internet for hours and hours to figure out how to configure some of those features correctly. 

We have used pfSense for about one year.

We haven't experienced any crashes or performance issues. I have pfSense loaded up with third-party packages, and it's just rock solid.

We're a small shop, so I don't have much experience deploying it in bigger, better, faster scenarios. 

I rate Netgate support nine out of 10. They were very responsive. It took some getting used to because I always used phone support. I love phone support. I like talking to people, but the support level that I paid for was email. They were on it fairly quickly. It was a licensing issue, and they told me exactly what the problem was within 24 hours.

Positive

I've used Cisco firewalls before and found them very complicated. You don't know what you're doing, and it's dedicated hardware. I've used some other common off-the-shelf products, such as Netgear and Linksys. I thought pfSense was the best fit.

The initial deployment of the pfSense firewall is easy. It took nearly four hours, including the additional configuration tweaks. We're a small environment, so it was pretty straightforward

After deployment, it doesn't require much maintenance. It's essentially fire and forget. I chose to do the updates manually, but you can set it to update automatically. I should note that I chose Dell platforms to run pfSense because there's a lot of industry knowledge regarding the combination of Dell and pfSense. Anyone deploying some no-name hardware from other companies will probably run into some trouble.

PfSense is affordable. I appreciate that it's based on a support requirement instead of bandwidth or users. We're pretty small, so we don't touch many of those levels that they might have. 

Since I'm using my own hardware instead of a Netgate appliance, this is the most bang for your buck you can deploy. I pay for the Plus and feel the benefits behind the software and configurations. The average user might be fine with the community edition, but I wouldn't go that route for a production environment. I think this is a cost-effective solution. I can amend it to manipulate the various hardware configurations without much pushback from Netgate. 

I rate Netgate pfSense nine out of 10. I highly recommend it. It isn't a perfect solution. It's a little difficult to configure. If you can afford it, I would pay for the phone support.

We use it as a firewall within our public cloud infrastructure. We use it in particular for IPSec, VPN, and Reverse Proxying HTTP Traffic. We have deployed multiple pfSenses and most of them are configured as HA/Failover.

We wanted to secure traffic between our main office and multiple public cloud data centers and providers. We also wanted to have access to our cloud components via VPN.

We have multiple websites that are proxied via HAProxy and secured via Let’s Encrypt TLS Certificates (generated via the ACME Plugin).

We deploy across multiple virtual data centers that are in different physical locations. Multiple teams have their own deployment. One HA / Failover cluster is the entry point to our websites so there are millions of HTTP requests per month. We also have around 20 to 30 users (Dev and Ops) who use the VPN feature. Behind the pfSense firewalls, there are around 100+ servers and no end users.

We replaced a Sophos UTM 9 Failover Cluster with a pfSense Failover Cluster and we can now make config and certificate changes without downtime. Also, the TLS certificates are rotated automatically.

The performance optimization documentation has improved our organization. The base setup is great but with higher bandwidth, it is really hard to find good documentation on how to tweak the setup to get the most out of your connection.

pfSense sort of gives us a single pane of glass management. We use the same product multiple times so we only need to know one product but it also does not offer a single management platform for all deployments. Whether this is good or bad depends on the point of view. On the one hand, we need to manage multiple setups, but on the other hand, we have a clear separation of concerns and risk zones (if the user account on one system is breached not all systems are affected).

It is hard to pinpoint a specific feature that is the most valuable. I think the big community is a major benefit. Most problems we encounter were already encountered and mostly solved by someone else. Most of the components are open-source tools, so the error messages have hits on Google which makes debugging easier.

pfSense has Plugins and is open source so everybody can add features or improve the product. For example, HAProxy, ACME Plugin, Prometheus-node-exporter, Nmap, etc. I see it as a relatively flexible product. If something is not working via the WebUI, SSH or WebKVM is always there.

Most of the time it is very straightforward to use a feature or plugin, the documentation is great and has examples that are very helpful. If something is a bit tricky, pfSense luckily has a big community. 

Performance Optimization Documentation could use improvement. The base setup is great but with higher bandwidth, it is really hard to find good documentation on how to tweak the setup to get the most out of your connection.

We have been using pfSense for eight years. 

pfSense is a very stable solution. In all the years I had around three instabilities.

Two people handle the maintenance of all pfSense Firewalls.

It can be used in small to big deployments. If the bandwidth hits more than 10GBs or 20GBs you need to optimize it to get good results. I would also not recommend it in very big ISP deployments with TBs of traffic.

I have never used the support for any technical issue. The community forums and Google always were enough.

Positive

In one of our virtual data centers, we had a Sophos UTM 9 as failover but it had some very annoying problems (Let’s Encrypt TLS Cert generation or WAF config reloads resulted in a two-minute downtime).

The old installation was straightforward, but the new installer has some bugs and does not really work.

We implemented it ourselves. 

Previous deployments were done by a System Engineer and the current deployments are done by me (DevOps Engineer) and a System Engineer. It was a one-person job.

We have better uptimes and lower support costs in comparison to the Sophos firewall and we are also saving on licensing fees.

The licensing seems fair. We owned the TAC Lite License for some time. The problem was, that the license is bound to a device ID which does not really work well with VMs where this ID changes sometimes.

We use pfSense Community Edition as our firewall within our public cloud so we only pay for the VM and the traffic.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. It is very good but has some fields in which it can improve.

You need to have an interest in the topic and also (like any security product) it needs regular attention. But it is a reliable firewall and the combination of BSD and ZFS makes it pretty solid.