Netgate pfSense Reviews

We use the solution for a Firewall and a VPN.

We have found that this solution is better at keeping our business safe by having improved intrusion prevention than competitors.

I have found the firewall portion for the blocking most valuable.

The VPN feature of the solution could improve by adding better functionality and providing easier configure ability.

I have been using the solution for approximately six months.

The solution is very stable.

I have found the solution to be unlimited when it comes to scalability. The more memory and power you give it, it will use it all.

I found the technical support of the solution to be not very good at all.

I have used Fortinet previously and the installation took a lot less time to install. Additionally, I have also used SonicWall before but I switched to the current solution because it was getting too expensive. 

The initial installation was very difficult, it took approximately one week.

We did the implementation and maintenance of the solution ourselves.

The solution software does not require a license, it is free. The support contract is about $600 dollars. 

I would recommend for other people looking into implementing the solution to read the manual, go on to the videos, verify everything with the tutorials. Make sure you fully comprehend the size of the software.

I rate pfSense a seven out of ten.

• Reliable
• Easily configurable
• Awesome plug-ins
• Very low maintenance

This product has allowed my current employer the ability to do what other firewalls seem to fail at, providing a reliable and secure point for allowing SIP traffic to pass. Training other admins how to use the features, and also creating custom user levels for various parts of access within the system has never been easier.

Some of the available plug-ins that work very well on older versions, and actually break the newer versions. If using a newer version of the software, then the list of available plug-ins should only list those capable/known to work with the version that you are running. Outside of that- it is a rock-solid firewall, now with support.

I have used this product for a very long time, over 10 years.

I have had very very few minor glitches in upgrading the product over the years. Most recently, I had the WAN side DNS change to default values. This is not a huge deal, but it took a little while to figure out why the external services were suddenly failing.

Stability is not a concern. I've enabled the HA features, and spread them across multiple ESXi hosts. The only thing that could take down my network, would be a lack of power to the hosts, or all of my ISP tanks at the same time.

I've had no issues. I am using this on multiple sites, with reliable VPN tunnels and the traffic seems to remain a constant.

I have generally only used the forums. In fact, I don't recall *ever* using customer service, but that's only because this product rocks.

I have generally only used the forums. In fact, I don't recall *ever* using Technical Support, but that's only because this product rocks.

I have merged pfSense with other products, but I have never chosen another product over pfSense unless I was unable to convince my client that free doesn't mean shoddy.

The initial setup has gotten to be much more streamlined. I think that for the average home user experimenting with networks, this *might* be a *little* hard to figure out at first, but the overall setup is generally a breeze. There shouldn't be any reason that someone can't figure it out in more than 15 minutes a BASE installation and network configuration.

I implemented it myself.

It's very high. I have replaced high-end Cisco, Juniper and Sonicwall systems with pfSense on very low-scale machines, and VMs. I have also created networks that are far more complex than any of those are capable of handling without some sort of annual license costing thousands of dollars.

My original setup cost was US$40 for a used x86 Pentium 2 machine, purchased through Boeing Surplus, and additional US$20 ($10 x 2) for two additional NICs to run LAN and OPT1 networks. So, $60 total for self-installation of pfSense v1.1.

I looked at low-end Cisco/Linksys devices for physical hardware, and I played around with a variety of free *nix based installations including customized IPTables, IPCop, SmoothWall, and Enodian.

If you want reliable, highly-customizable, and rock solid firewall, do not hesitate for one second to install/purchase this product.

I use the solution in two of my homes. I have a home in the UK and one more in the US. I have two firewall tools running with a VPN link between them, and it allows me to easily administer and protect both networks, one in the UK and the other in the US.

I can discuss the product's most valuable features if you have a playbook for some of the things you want to hear about or expect me to touch upon.

The tool's most valuable features revolve around its ease of use. It is a resilient product with a very easy-to-use interface. The learning curve for the product is very simple. I also like the core packages included in the tool, making my firewall a one-stop shop for stuff like DNS and VPN usage. The tool has a lot of packages available. I like the product's in-built packages. I use WireGuard VPN, and it is very good. I use IPSec, the built-in DNS product in the tool. I can also link the tool with my UPS if the UPS has an outage in the northeast region where people experience electricity cuts. The software I use on Netgate pfSense acts as a kind of choke point and sends messages throughout my network to start shutting down during electricity cuts. My firewall is a ground zero area for me on my edge. All the packages in the tool allow me to protect my network. It serves as a Layer 4 product since Netgate pfSense doesn't do anything like other products offering Layer 7. As a Layer 4 product, Netgate pfSense is very strong since I can easily create very advanced firewall rules, which I wouldn't be able to create as easily with other solutions, especially if they don't come with more than 10,000 or 20,000 USD as the price tag. Palo Alto, Check Point, or FortiGate are expensive firewall products compared to Netgate pfSense. I don't think Netgate pfSense really competes with Palo Alto, Check Point, or FortiGate, but the latter set of tools may make it feel like Netgate is trying to compete with them. I work for a major security firewall vendor, and I don't think Netgate pfSense competes with it. Netgate pfSense provides SMEs with a significant amount of value for not a lot of cash.

It is very easy to add features to Netgate pfSense. Now remember that Netgate pfSense does not attract an average IT person. The tool attracts people with two profiles, including CCNA-certified or very sophisticated firewall administrators, hoping they can help use some of the pretty advanced features in the product. The second profile of the tool's users would consist of those who are getting started or want a better firewall than what their carriers or the provider provides them with so that they can learn about firewall devices. They want to learn about networking by using Netgate pfSense. For both profiles, the tool offers a very linear learning curve. The documentation in Netgate pfSense is very strong.

The benefits related to the product can be experienced immediately after the product is deployed. I wanted to replace EdgeRouters from Ubiquiti for my use cases, which have now gone into a deprecated mode. I wanted a tool that could offer me the functionality of EdgeRouter, and I was happy to pay more for a product that could provide such features. Compared to EdgeRouter, I had to spend 700 to 800 USD on both the final units from Netgate pfSense for both of my homes. I chose Netgate pfSense since I wanted a tool with a set of more updated functionalities and a solution that can be considered an easy replacement product for EdgeRouter. I saw immediate value in Netgate pfSense from day one.

A single pane of glass is a vast term. If I were to define a single pane of glass, I would say that it is something from which you can see everything from everywhere in a single dashboard. The single-pane-of-glass feature within the tool's user interface is one of the core aspects of the product. In my opinion, the tool has a very strong dashboard.

Netgate pfSense can minimize downtime easily since it is easy to put it in a high-availability configuration.

Considering that the tool offers a Layer 4 firewall's functionalities, I can say that Netgate pfSense provides visibility that enables me to make data-driven decisions. For example, the firewall fits into two markets. The north-to-south market is where Netgate fits in with Palo Alto, Check Point, Sophos, and Cisco. There is also the east-to-west market where I work since it is where my employer is currently. When you talk about the visibility of data, you are looking for either north to south or east to west. In terms of the visibility from east to west, which is based on application to application or data center within a data center, Netgate pfSense will not be helpful at all. From north to south, I get visibility over what is coming into my network. For example, I can easily capture dump traffic using the in-built features in the tool and run an SNIP on the traffic. I can see what's coming in and inspect those packets, and I can do that all within the user interface, which is a new feature in the tool that is very strong. I like the tool's new feature. The tool has very easy-to-consume logs, and it is very easy for me to export them into a SIEM server if I want to do some kind of mass data warehousing and sorting.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities, if I assess the total cost of ownership of Netgate pfSense, I would say it is very large.

I think the tool requires more strategic improvements than we need it to be in the present. With Netgate, considering that I work in a firewall market, I know that its problem is not just in its features. It needs improvements in terms of the strategic vision, where the product should go, and what market it should be for in the future. Netgate needs to figure out if they want to strive for the SMB business and the home market or if they want to attempt to reach out at an enterprise level. 

I don't think Netgate knows where they want to go with or without a plan. I think Netgate is still trying to devise a plan by itself as to which market it wants to fall into, which can make it more profitable for the tool. There is nothing that Netgate pfSense could do to make me feel any better about the product. I love the product, and I will use it until I die. It is a really good product. Improvements are needed in the area of the company's strategic vision and based on where the solution needs to go in the future. I spoke about north to south and east to west since the world is moving towards the concept of zero trust. If you are a CISO or a CIO and you are trying to achieve a zero-trust architecture, you need to check if Netgate is on your list of companies that would help you achieve it. If I consider the CIOs I speak to, Netgate doesn't even get mentioned in our talks.

I do not require improvements in the product. It is feature-complete. As a firewall, Netgate pfSense can be described as a very feature-complete product for the market space in which it currently operates.

Strategy and vision of the product are the areas with shortcomings where improvements can be made so that Netgate pfSense can figure out where the product should go in the future. It will provide Netgate with choices like whether it wants to go towards a zero trust architecture if it wants to go towards the east-to-west direction if it wants to go towards big enterprise or go into Layer 7 traffic. My answer regarding the need for improvement in the product is going to be more of a strategic-based one rather than from a technical point of view because the product is excellent.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for five years. I am an end user of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The solution's scalability is tricky, and it all depends on the context. It is infinitely scalable for me, and my company has 150 devices in my network, which may be nothing. Suppose a company like J.P. Morgan says they want to use Netgate Netgate as their north-to-south firewall. In that case, you may face big scalability problems because, at such a level, tools like Check Point or Cisco have custom silicon chip designs to support their workloads. For SMBs, the scalability part is not an issue. I don't think Netgate pfSense can offer much scalability for big enterprises.

I have contacted the solution's technical support team. The quality of the answers provided by the technical support team is good, and the responsiveness is exceptional. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have used many solutions that can be considered alternatives to Netgate pfSense. I can compare Netgate pfSense with FortiGate since Netgate is priced similarly but falls at a lower end when compared to Fortinet FortiGate. FortiGate is a better product for an enterprise. For home usage and small and medium-sized enterprises, Netgate pfSense can be a stronger choice than FortiGate. For home use, Netgate pfSense is very much preferable.

Even for an unskilled person, the tool's deployment phase would be easy to manage. It is a very easy product to consume because it has a lot of WYSIWYG and built-in wizards, along with a very easy graphical user interface.

Deploying one instance of Netgate pfSense can take around five minutes, and only one person does it. Regarding the other tasks, our company has firewall products that handle more than 100 or 1,000 workloads, and two to three people manage them.

A limited amount of maintenance is required from the end of the tool's users. It is just to adjust the firewall rules as and when necessary to meet the business needs, like in patching, where Netgate pfSense does a very good job while also being very responsible and quick to respond to zero day and CVE alerts. The tool is superb and very impressive, but it can be described as a very low-overhead product because, by nature, firewalls under the north-to-south are for static workloads, which is where Netgate's market is currently. Those workloads are not changing for now. You put Negate pfSense into your system and forget about it, which can be considered as a whole other problem in firewall products, but I won't go too deep into it because that is why there are 20 years of rules in firewalls and no one maintains it because you just set it up and forget it.

I bought Netgate pfSense Plus since I have to use the firewall in both my houses, so I have four solutions. I have made certain payments using a subscription-based model to use Netgate pfSense Plus.

If I were a part of Netgate leadership or running the company, I would clear out a few areas on the strategy side of the business. I work for a major enterprise where an SME or the tool is needed. Netgate's strategy regarding Netgate pfSense Plus for home users or labs was very misleading in nature and handled very badly. I have opted for the tool's subscription-based pricing model. a subscription, and I am very happy to pay the money money, which comes to around 130 USD for two years, which is nothing for me. Netgate handles the tool's subscription-based pricing model very badly.

I think Netgate pfSense's pricing or licensing models are fair enough. I think the way Netgate pfSense handled its previous pricing model with regards to Netgate pfSense Plus was an area that was misleading for users. Overall, what I pay for the product is very reasonable.

There are no features in Netgate pfSense that help prevent data loss. One can use a DLP tool to manage data loss.

The visibility in Netgate pfSense does not help me optimize performance, and I think it is because I am a pretty advanced user on the command line. I wouldn't rely on the visualization part for any advanced performance.

I have never used Netgate pfSense on Amazon EC2 virtual machines.

My suggestion to those who plan to use the product would be that they need to read the solution's documentation, utilize the community forums and shouldn't be afraid to fail. It is easy to recover from failure with Netgate pfSense since it has configuration change logs along with very easy rollback abilities. In the newest version, if you make a change and you reboot, it just snapshots you back to the new change, which is excellent.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I use pfSense for various reasons, including implementing IPsec technology due to having limited branches. I use a VPN for secure connections, control the Internet or network flow, employ it as an NTP server, facilitate conference calls, and set up VLANs. I use it to run a proxy server.

I use the free version of Netgate pfSense software. I installed it on my servers with mini network cards, allowing me to create mini gateways and implement different plans.

The Netgate forums and community don’t provide extensive discussions and topics related to every pfSense service.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for five years. We are using the V23.09 of the solution.

Everything is very smooth, with a user-friendly interface. You can use the user interface or CLI as a command.

We have 250 employees using this solution.

We have Git Community forums with a million topics about all issues regarding Netgate pfSense. We can save this information to address various concerns.

I have several reasons for choosing Netgate pfSense. Firstly, it serves my purposes effectively and is entirely free. Secondly, when I search on Google or inquire about past experiences with firewall workloads, its reliability and cost-effectiveness stand out.

The initial setup is too easy.

The product is free of cost.

I recommend using Postgres. However, if you need a firewall without additional tools and prefer a pool of well-established services, pfSense offers suitable features."

Other solutions like Postgres, Sophos, and Palo Alto are in the market. We've used firewalls for a long time, but in the last three years, I worked with pfSense, and it's efficient for all devices.

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

I have used Netgate pfSense for a range of purposes. Initially, I employed it for VPN connections, mainly for personal and professional use. I also relied on it to maintain network equipment in a professional context. In the professional sphere, I have experience with both pfSense and Juniper, but eventually, I decided to phase out Juniper due to its high costs, especially for updates and the addition of new functionalities. pfSense's cost-effectiveness and the flexibility to transition to new hardware while retaining configurations made it a preferred choice. pfSense also stands out in terms of its rapid algorithm evolution compared to competitors like Juniper. Its scalability is another advantage, where adding a new box or reconfiguring can boost the firewall's capacity.

On a personal note, I use Netgate pfSense to connect to my equipment at the data center. Currently, I have a highly available installation that requires two instances of pfSense. While I considered pfSense for this setup, I had to assess whether OpenSense might offer better features for future requirements before delving deeper into pfSense.

It's worth noting that Netgate pfSense's performance is independent of the hardware it runs on. As I mentioned earlier, its scalability is a strong point. Most functions are readily available, and additional features can be obtained by downloading and installing plugins, which are generally free. When you compare this to the alternative of purchasing a firewall from a different supplier, you'll find that the latter option typically doubles the cost of the firewall itself. This cost increase is often attributed to additional licenses for deep inspection and similar functionalities. While configuring pfSense may require more time and effort upfront, the long-term cost savings make it a more cost-effective choice.   

One concern I have with Netgate pfSense is related to packet filtering. Specifically, issues can arise with certain functionalities like GP, and, at times, there may be bugs. When creating IP lists, I've noticed that synchronization doesn't always function correctly. While it's not entirely dysfunctional, troubleshooting these synchronization problems can be quite challenging.

I have been using Netgate pfSense since 2015-16.

I've experienced certain issues with Netgate pfSense in the past, particularly with the previous version, which was 2.5. It posed several problems. However, the current version appears to be more stable. Nonetheless, I still encounter troubleshooting challenges. For instance, there is an issue where it initially blocks an IP range but releases it after ten minutes. This behavior is somewhat peculiar, and it pertains to IP filtering.

The support for Netgate pfSense mainly comes from online forums. These forums are populated by a significant number of individuals who are knowledgeable in pfSense and its related areas, making it a valuable resource.

The choice of whether to use Netgate pfSense often depends on the company's preferences. In some cases, particularly in Switzerland, there is a strong preference for open source solutions. This choice is sometimes motivated by the desire for open source alternatives and can also be related to cost considerations.

The Initial setup is very easy.

Netgate pfSense is a cost-effective option. If you're not using a VPN, you can acquire a decent embedded PC for around a hundred dollars and install pfSense on it, effectively creating a robust firewall solution. With this setup, you can achieve a throughput of two hundred to three hundred megabits per second without any issues, provided you're handling relatively simple rules. The level of performance depends on the specific requirements and tasks.

If you're considering using Netgate pfSense for the first time, I would recommend giving it a try. It's relatively easy to set up and use, especially if you have some prior knowledge of network and IT work. The user manual provides helpful guidance, and the basic configuration is straightforward. Just ensure you pay attention to the hardware requirements to make the most of it.

It can be rated as an eight for simplicity. However, as you progress and introduce complexities, such as enabling deep packet inspection, adding extra features, or installing multiple plugins, the configuration can become more intricate. I encountered some issues with iOS in version 2.5, but they are expected to be resolved or have been resolved.

We use pfSense as our main router.

We implemented pfSense to address the instability and limited customization options we experienced with our previous router.

pfSense is highly flexible, allowing for creating IPsec tunnels and various other configurations.

Adding features to pfSense is easy.

Since implementing pfSense, our overall stability has improved significantly over the last ten years as we transitioned from Prosumer equipment to a more robust tool. This success has allowed me to implement more pfSense routers in other locations. We saw the benefits of pfSense in less than a couple of weeks. Having that added stability is great.

pfSense Plus provides us with the visibility to make data-driven decisions. We can see historical data and bandwidth utilization, allowing us to make informed decisions about our internet connection based on that information.

The most valuable aspects of pfSense are the stability, hardware compatibility, and low cost.

I want pfSense to add some next-generation firewall features.

The scalability has room for improvement.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years. 

I rate the stability of pfSense ten out of ten.

Due to the absence of a single pane of glass management feature, scaling out pfSense becomes quite challenging. I'd rate its scalability a three out of ten, as the process is far from straightforward at present.

The few times we've had to engage support, they have been professional and incredibly knowledgeable. If we encounter someone who doesn't have the answer immediately, they can find it very quickly. In the past, they have even joined meetings with us and a client to work on a problem, providing a lot of insight and assistance throughout the process.

Positive

We previously used Prosumer routers, but their capabilities were insufficient for our needs.

Initially, it was a bit complex when I started using the system over ten years ago. pfSense required a deeper understanding than the Prosumer devices I had used before. I had to grasp the ramifications of every action. However, once I overcame that learning curve, it became knowledge I possessed.

It took us about two weeks to implement and learn how to use pfSense. I've noticed that with pfSense, I'm always learning something new. Just because we've used something for a long time doesn't mean we know all of its functionality. For example, I needed to establish an IPsec tunnel for the first time last year. I called in support, and we successfully established the tunnel to another location. There's always something new to learn, whether pfSense adds new features or we encounter a need for functionality we haven't used before.

pfSense Plus is cost-effective for what we're getting. I've been using Netgate hardware for a long time, and including the pfSense Plus license with the hardware offers significant value. Additionally, using pfSense software for free is of great value.

The total cost of ownership is very low. We've used pfSense historically in a simple configuration, and I've been able to train peers on how to use the Netgate hardware and pfSense Plus effectively.

I rate Netgate pfSense seven out of ten only because of the lack of ability to manage all our switching and WAP from one location.

We have three locations, and two to 25 users use a combination of wired and wireless devices and a typical broadband connection.

pfSense requires maintenance when new versions or patches are released. This does not happen often, but it does happen.

I recommend pfSense to others. Once you overcome the learning curve, it becomes almost second nature to use. The cost is also a major factor. Every year or so, I explore alternatives to Netgate hardware, but almost everything I find is subscription-based, like Cisco Meraki or other brands. I'd struggle to justify renewing a router license every 18 months or risk it stopping working. So, using a platform like pfSense without an annual fee is a huge benefit for our budget.

We use pfSense as a firewall to improve our security. 

pfSense is viable and works as it's supposed to. It prevents data loss. I've used it on several networks. It's there in the background and just works. It minimizes downtime by running dual WANs and automatically switching between two connections.

pfSense is relatively easy to set up and just runs. It's easy to use. The platform is flexible. We've been able to do everything we've tried. It seems very complete. I'm not using all of the capabilities, but it does what we want to do. 

Once you find what you're looking for, it's relatively easy to add features and configure them. Google helps out. I've been able to do anything I wanted.

The learning curve is a little long.

We deployed pfSense in the last five years. 

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for stability. 

It's a small firewall and we have a small network. 

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. I've only contacted them a couple of times, and it's been fine. They've responded quickly and done the job. 

Positive

I've only used off-the-shelf routers without a truly community-built firewall product. 

My background is in IT, so the installation is relatively straightforward once you understand a few concepts, but that's normal. I got pfSense running in a day.  d

The price of pfSense is fair. We have a relatively small network, and most of the competitors are pretty expensive. 

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10. It does everything it should do.

I install Netgate pfSense in various locations. It is also used for monitoring traffic and acting as a proxy.

I handle the scanning for the finance department. I recently encountered an issue with our company bills. I resolved the matter, cleared the bill, and received calls regarding it using pfSense. 

The user interface is extremely user-friendly, which is why we use it across various sites. Our IT representatives at the plants find it easy to use and manage because of its straightforward interface.

They rely on third-party tools, unlike Fortinet, for example, which has its own tools. In comparison, we also use third-party tools on pfSense. For example, we had a situation where we needed a tool to identify authorized users, and when I searched for a solution, I found a third-party tool. However, using such tools may come with additional costs.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for around one year. 

If I think about pfSense, I would rate the stability around six. There have been some issues with stability, causing occasional downtime. I haven't extensively worked with pfSense in the last year, so my experience is limited.

The scalability of pfSense is excellent, and it's easy to expand. Currently, we have around 200-plus users at our head office using pfSense. I would rate it 7 out of 10.

I haven't contacted Netgate technical support, so I can't provide feedback on that aspect.

Comparing pfSense with other vendors, I appreciate Fortinet for its all-in-one device with ALi involvement. However, for a country like Pakistan with limited resources, pfSense is suitable for small offices due to its cost-effectiveness.

Installation is straightforward, especially for IT professionals. During the installation process, you are prompted to input the brand of the internet and LAN cables. If you're unsure, you can simply connect the cables – one for the internet and one for LAN – and proceed. You can choose to use either one or two cards based on your preference.

Regarding maintenance and technical support, we have a team of around 14 technical staff who handle phone calls and work on maintenance when required.

On a scale of one to ten for pfSense overall, I would rate it a seven. In comparison with other top devices like Fortinet and UDMP, pfSense stands equal in my opinion.