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.
"We are using the FortiGate 100D series. VPN, firewall, anti-malware, OTM, and intrusion prevention are useful features."
"Fortinet FortiGate's ease of management is the most valuable feature."
"The interface is very user-friendly and I like it very much."
"Fortinet FortiGate is scalable for our users. Right now, we have almost 70 users. We do not have any plan to increase our usage of FortiGate. For maintaining the firewall solution, one staff member is enough."
"FortiGate firewalls are user-friendly, and I like the security profiling features."
"It blocks the vulnerabilities that can negatively impact us."
"The user interface (UI) is very, very good."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"The IPS module is my favorite because of the security advantage reached with a few clicks and its automatic updates."
"The solution can scale well."
"Technical support is very helpful."
"FortiGate-VM has many valuable features: it's easy to use, it's intuitive, it's got very good traffic inspection features, it's got comprehensive filtering categories, and it has an extensive threat database, using FortiGuard."
"A top feature is the really good web interface and the classic Fortinet features, such as IPS, IDS, AV scanner, and spam filter."
"The most valuables features are the ease of use and deployment."
"The product is easy to implement."
"All the security features that are built into the product are valuable."
"The gain in performance and security from configuring the VPN connections was significant."
"Content protection, content inspection, and the application level firewall."
"It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good."
"I have found the firewall portion for the blocking most valuable."
"There is good documentation with a fantastic community and enterprise support."
"A free firewall that is a good network security appliance."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"My company mainly works in the health and educational domain, schools and universities. I prevent the improper use of content from schools and universities. I defend the medical records for the patients in our hospitals. That is the main use case for me for the firewall."
"I use the FortiGate 60D model and realized the 300Mbps bandwidth limitation. Because it is a product that offers many services, I think it could have greater bandwidth capacity."
"I would like to see improvements made to the dashboard and UI, as well as to the reporting."
"We had some issues in the beginning while setting it up, but after doing the firmware update, it is working fine."
"You do need some IT knowledge in order to effectively work with the solution."
"The pricing could be reduced or include the first year warranty."
"I feel that the reporting needs to be improved."
"My only complaint about FortiGate is a lack of QinQ VLAN tunneling. I haven't found this feature in any Fortinet product. You can do this on all Cisco routers, including the smaller models. However, QinQ isn't available on the biggest, most expensive Fortinet units. They still don't have that. I think now we're on software version 6.0, and they still haven't found a solution for QinQ. It isn't a dealbreaker, but that's my main complaint."
"There is room for improvement related to the logging and reporting aspect."
"The costs could be lowered."
"The solution is fairly complex."
"The licensing needs to be improved. We need longer licensing periods, especially for POCs and trials. It should be for six months. Right now, it's too short of a timeframe."
"It would be useful to have integration with different reporting tools. This is something we are sorely missing. It would be a plus to have reporting integrations. It would be good to have more integration with the identity suites, such as Office 365 and Azure Active Directory, of different providers that we use. Integrations are already available, but it would be nice to have some more advanced options."
"The stability of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The interface needs to be updated and simplified."
"Price-wise, it could be slightly better, however, if you compared it to other makes and models of equal category, it is generally cheaper."
"The price is problematic."
"I've never tried it in large environments. All my clients are small businesses with a handful of employees, so I am not sure how it works in large environments. I keep up with recent versions, and there's nothing I'm waiting for, and nothing breaks when I get a new version."
"More documentation would be great, especially on new features because sometimes, when new features come out, you don't get to understand them right off the bat. You have to really spend a lot of time understanding them. So, more documentation would be awesome."
"Ultimately, we'd like something stronger, and something that can handle threats better in real-time."
"Other solutions provide more scope for growth. For instance, we can have only 10 to 20 employees on VPN, but other solutions can support more users. We also have more capabilities to increase the performance of the solution."
"The main problem with pfSense is that it lacks adequate ransomware protection."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"A way to clean squid cache from the GUI."
"The solution could be more user-friendly, and the graphical interface needs some work so that someone without an IT background can use the application. I would like the ability to manage the on-premise appliance from the cloud. When I'm not in the office, it would be great to connect to the pfSense server and administer the network remotely."
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.