We performed a comparison between OPNsense and SonicWall TZ based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: OPNsense is highly praised for its ability to easily adapt to changing needs, its guest access options, its flexibility, and its open license. SonicWall TZ is known for its exceptional unified threat management, strong VPN capabilities, reliable web security, and user-friendly centralized interface.
OPNsense could benefit from improvements in interface simplicity, bandwidth management, high availability, logging, integration, hardware updates, reporting, SSL inspection, and learning curve. SonicWall TZ needs enhancements in rated throughput, secondary DNS hosting, cloud management, user interface, integration, marketing, reporting, additional ports, GSM and Sonic Analyzer features, advanced features and pricing, UI application and net policies, scalability and proxy feature, DPI-SSL clients, content filtering, DNS hosting, monitoring and pricing, security and VPN connections, overall cost, and version improvements.
Service and Support: The customer service for OPNsense has garnered varying feedback, with certain users appreciating prompt responses and valuable aid, whereas some encounter challenges when attempting to access support. SonicWall TZ's support has also generated diverse opinions, as a few customers face language barriers and delays, but overall find the support satisfactory.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for OPNsense is uncomplicated and can be managed by clients without IT expertise, although it might be more time-consuming in certain scenarios like Azure. SonicWall TZ setup is simple, user-friendly, and can be finished within a timeframe ranging from 30 minutes to a few hours. Technical staff can provide assistance for swift deployment.
Pricing: The cost of setting up OPNsense primarily depends on the hardware used, since the software is provided for free. SonicWall TZ has received varying opinions regarding its pricing and licensing, with some users considering it cost-effective while others find it to be expensive.
ROI: OPNsense is a cost-effective option with a quicker return on investment due to the absence of ongoing fees. SonicWall TZ delivers satisfactory outcomes, although it suggests an upgrade for enhanced performance.
Comparison Results: Based on user feedback, OPNsense is the preferred choice when comparing it to SonicWall TZ. Users appreciate OPNsense for its scalability, excellent features, user-friendly interface, flexibility, stability, availability of a free version, and well-documented resources.
"You can purchase switches and you don't need to do anything with them. You just put in the firewall and the switches get all the policies and rules that you already have in the firewall. With Fortinet, you just connect the FortiSwitch to the Fortinet and that's it."
"The most valuable feature is the VDOM, which allows the customer to have multiple firewalls in a single campus."
"I'm pretty happy with its reliability. It is also very scalable."
"It's great for capturing the traffic and troubleshooting it."
"The solution is scalable."
"The integration with Active Directory is one of the good features. Most of the customers are now looking for the Single Sign-on feature. So, being able to integrate Active Directory with the firewall is useful. It is also easy."
"Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so."
"It is easy to manage, and it doesn't need much knowledge from the team. It is a stable device, and there are many features that are included out of the box."
"The most valuable features are reporting, the Sensei plugin, and firewall capabilities."
"The technical support is very good."
"One of the most valuable features is the network checking. Additionally, the firewall and web filtering functionalities are highly useful."
"The DNS-level filtering is impressive for thwarting time scanners."
"I feel that its valuable features are that it is simple and free."
"It's open source."
"We can open a new VPN connection easily. It's much easier than with Fortinet in our experience."
"URL blocking, Wireguard, Tail Scale, Engine Blocker, and VPN are the most valuable features for me."
"The most valuable feature is content filtering and app control."
"From our point of view, the most valuable feature was the ease of deployment."
"We like their interface very much. It's pretty easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the protection available, and then ease of use and flexibility."
"With the main firewall routing there, we can do connectivity point-to-point. On the low bandwidth we can connect in all the branches with my corporate office."
"It does exactly what it says on the tin. It is good for protecting the business from being compromised. Its port protection is very good."
"It is a scalable solution."
"I have found this solution to be easier to use when compared to other products, such as those offered by Cisco."
"It's my understanding that more of the current generation features could be brought in. There could be more integration with EDRs, for example."
"I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE."
"Its customer service could be better."
"Monitoring and reporting could be better."
"The graphical user interface of Fortinet's FortiGate product does not function well with text-based interfaces."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a firewall solution and once it's deployed, you can rest assured that your system is secure."
"Fortigate's hardware capacities could be improved."
"Currently, without the additional reporting module, we only have access to basic reporting."
"In terms of improvement, the performance could be enhanced."
"On the customer-side, because I'm a small business, I need a cheaper or free solution option."
"The user interface could be improved, and the DNS section should be more intuitive."
"You will need additional training before you can actually start to use it."
"The reporting part could be better."
"The logging could improve in OPNsense."
"The solution could be more secure."
"The IPS solution could be more reliable."
"Its reporting can be improved. Currently, we cannot directly get the user names. It only shows the IP, which makes it a bit confusing because we need to use the IP to find the user. If we could directly get the name of the user, it would be better."
"It needs more robust self-help documentation along with examples and things to watch out for."
"If the operation increases and the bandwidth consumption increases, it does not perform as per the expectations."
"The solution must provide more ports."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"The stability could be a lot better."
"The dashboard needs to be improved."
"The monitoring is a little bit confusing."
OPNsense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 36 reviews while SonicWall TZ is ranked 12th in Firewalls with 78 reviews. OPNsense is rated 8.4, while SonicWall TZ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OPNsense writes "Robust network security and management offering a user-friendly interface, open-source flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, with challenges regarding initial setup and the absence of official support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SonicWall TZ writes "Has efficient user access control feature and good technical support services ". OPNsense is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos UTM and Check Point NGFW, whereas SonicWall TZ is most compared with Sophos XG, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX, SonicWall NSa and Zyxel Unified Security Gateway. See our OPNsense vs. SonicWall TZ 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.