We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiGate-VM and pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Fortinet FortiGate-VM is highly regarded for its robust security features, including geofencing, firewalling, IPS, and antivirus. Additionally, users appreciate its intuitive interface. pfSense is praised for its ability to block IPs effectively and its user-friendly dashboards. Furthermore, its open-source nature and cost-effectiveness are also seen as valuable attributes.
Fortinet FortiGate-VM needs enhancements in key activation processes, log management, cloud management, MFA offerings, web filter options, application inspection, IPsec failover, monitoring tool, hardening guidelines, product availability, setup and configuration, firmware updates, GUI capabilities, and technical support. pfSense requires improvements in instructional videos, web interface clarity, stability, mobile application, VPN functionality, reporting, integration, WAF knowledge, URL filtering, centralized management, GUI version for SMBs, sandboxing, documentation, user-friendliness for non-IT users, configuration processes, and SD-WAN integration.
Service and Support: Customers have provided mixed feedback on the customer service of Fortinet FortiGate-VM. Some commend the support team for their prompt responses and expertise, while others express a need for improvement in technical support. pfSense's customer service also receives mixed reviews as well. Certain users appreciate the technical assistance they received during the setup and configuration process, while others highlight limited support for the open-source nature of the product.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Fortinet FortiGate-VM is generally easy and straightforward, with support and assistance available. It may require knowledge of Fortinet products. pfSense is considered user-friendly and intuitive, with a straightforward installation. However, some users recommend clearer guidance or a configuration wizard.
Pricing: Fortinet's cost is competitive and encompasses licensing fees, whereas pfSense provides a free open-source solution, albeit with a learning cost. Fortinet's pricing is adaptable and may rise with scaling, while pfSense does not entail additional fees for updates.
ROI: Fortinet FortiGate-VM provides enhanced security and stability, leading to a favorable return on investment. It is important to select the appropriate size initially to prevent any monetary drawbacks. pfSense is a cost-efficient option that enables businesses to maximize profits and attain a substantial ROI.
Comparison Results: Fortinet FortiGate-VM is the preferred product when compared to pfSense. Users appreciate Fortinet FortiGate-VM for its strong security capabilities, such as geofencing, firewalling, IPS, antivirus, and intrusion prevention systems. They also find it easy to use, deploy, and scale, thanks to its intuitive interface.
"The wireless control is helpful."
"Web filtering and two-factor authentication are great features."
"The network security and cloud security are most valuable."
"Whenever we raise a complaint with FortiGate, their response and resolution times are minimal."
"The solution is stable."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is load balancing. It can provide central management and VPNA. Additionally, it has enhanced our security environment."
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"It is easy to use. We chose this product for the possibility to have virtual domains (VDOMs). We are building another company in the group, and we would like to split the firewalling rules and policies between these two companies. Each company would be able to manage its own policies and security rules, which is an advantage of Fortinet FortiGate. We can define VDOMs, and every company can manage its own VDOM as if it has its own physical firewall, but in fact, we would be using the same physical appliance because we are also using the same internet lines. So, it allows us to reuse the existing resources without the disadvantage of having to compromise on policies and security. Each company can choose its own way of working."
"An enhanced security solution for any kind of alert that we have configured."
"The solution offers good documentation."
"We work in the archiving domain where a secure environment is very important. We have some special requirements regarding the security of infrastructure."
"All the security features that are built into the product are valuable."
"The solution's initial setup process was very easy."
"It gives all the features of a full-fledged firewall with great performance."
"It is very useful to make lists for rules and prepare firewall rules."
"The thing that I like the most is that they're very willing to work with us to resolve issues that they haven't taken care of before in their product."
"An incomparable stability is achieved with other firewall systems."
"The flexibility of adding new kinds of services without spending any money can't be beaten."
"The product’s documentation is good."
"I use pfSense because it gives me the flexibility to greatly expand basic firewall features."
"The firewall sensor is highly effective, and it's easy to deploy. You can deploy pfSense with limited hardware resources. It's not necessary to have an appliance with much RAM to make it work. It's cost-effective and performs well."
"It works. I put pfSense in, and it works. I can't think of any trouble I ever had with it. It runs on heat-sensitive appliances. They don't need a fan, so they don't overheat. It is affordable, fast, and very high-speed. It is built on BSD Unix, and it pretty much runs on any Intel processor."
"What I found most valuable is the cost of the platform, the flexibility of the platform, and the fact that the ongoing fees are not there as they are with the competitor. Some people may think you're taking a risk with using Opensource. I think it just provides the end user, specifically for us small, medium business providers of services, the flexibility we need at the right cost to provide them a higher end, almost enterprise type service."
"The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, are the most important."
"In the next release, maybe the documentation on how to use this solution could be improved."
"Quality control on their firmware versions needs improvement. When they introduce new firmware, there tend to be bugs."
"You do need some IT knowledge in order to effectively work with the solution."
"Its reporting can be improved. Sometimes, I don't get proper reports."
"Currently, FortiGate is providing SSL VPN. But they're missing some features that are available in Palo Alto's SSL VPN."
"It should have a better pricing plan. It is too expensive. It should also have a more granular view of the attack. I don't have FortiAnalyzer, and it is difficult for me to have a complete view when there is an attack on my server."
"Fortinet needs more memory to save the log files. We need it to save the logs on the hardware and not in the cloud. I know this feature is available in FortiCloud, but if we need this log locally, it is not available."
"There could be more integration between the logging and analytical platforms to make it more seamless and integrated."
"FortiGate should be more customer friendly and budgeted better."
"Data backup functionality could be included in the product."
"his is not a good solution for enterprises. It's better for smaller companies."
"The tech support calls were not the best and could be improved. There have been times when we felt as if we knew more about the device than the support person on the phone."
"They could simplify the troubleshooting process."
"They could provide more integration options with different platforms."
"The user interface could be improved."
"They should keep us up to date about the latest version. That's the biggest thing. Currently, we have to go looking for the latest version. We should get notified about what's going on with the versions. I would like to see easier dual-factor authentication."
"It's just not listed as FIPS compliant for where we're at now in government, which is an issue."
"There's a bit of a learning curve during the initial implementation."
"Network monitoring and device inventory could use some improvements. I'm using SpiceWorks for this because it never really worked in pfSense."
"This solution is good for small businesses but it is not as stable as other competitors such as Fortinet."
"Lacks instructional videos."
"A way to clean squid cache from the GUI."
"I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial."
"The main problem with pfSense is that we have to use proxy solutions."
Fortinet FortiGate-VM is ranked 9th in Firewalls with 113 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Fortinet FortiGate-VM is rated 8.4, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiGate-VM writes "An easy-to-manage and configure tool that provides ample documentation to help with the setup phase". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Fortinet FortiGate-VM is most compared with Azure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, Fortinet FortiOS, OPNsense and KerioControl, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Fortinet FortiGate-VM vs. Netgate pfSense report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
