Netgate pfSense Reviews

We have one Head Office and two main offices and other small branches. We want to secure our network from external and internal threats and block all unnecessary ports. We want to create a WAN with firewalls installed at all other offices and branches to connect to Head Office directly.

Overall, our experience with pfSense has been good. We're satisfied with what we're doing, but we have to move forward. It's covering what we require now, but maybe we might need something else in the future. For example, we are implementing ISO 2701, and the regulators could demand something else for compliance if they conduct an audit. And if we're following the policies required by ISO 2701 best practices, then perhaps we need to implement new hardware too because we can't do everything with our existing hardware infrastructure. 

For instance, say I want to block USB access, but I don't have the software. Currently, we use our antivirus software, which is a proper endpoint management tool. We can use it to modify the Windows registry and block everything, I can do whatever I want with the PC on the endpoints. We need to have that, but not everything works without the hardware infrastructure. 

The GUI is easy to understand. 

We had one issue with hardware support. The department head who was managing the solution became the director of the company, but he still has administrator access. And usually, whenever a WAN goes down, we always have a backup, but the hardware doesn't support more than one WAN. And then, if he wants to switch, he doesn't know how to reconfigure it. So we have to wait for the ISP to resume their services, which is not professional.

Also, the GUI is helpful, but it's not user-friendly. It's complicated. It should be more intuitive for the average user and have an excellent graphical view. Of course, the user will typically know about network administration, but it still should be easy to understand. A user should be able to find the feature they're looking for easily, but pfSense isn't so good in that sense.

We're using a flavor of pfSense. It's called XNET. It's a flavor of the pfSense main pfSense build because it's open-source, but it's basically similar to the pfSense build, and we've been using it since 2008.

Not very stable.

Scalable but only if one has expertise of open source configuration of software such as pfsense.

Customer support for any open source product is mostly based on the individuals who have expert knowledge while otherwise we have to resort to other internet sources.

I've used TMG by Microsoft, and it's much easier to manage domains and websites. For example, pfSense has IP-based blocking, but websites like YouTube and Facebook keep using different IPs. TMG blocks the actual domain name. That is one downside to pfSense I've noticed as a basic user.

It was complex and done by the vendor.

We only paid for the hardware and savings were quite high.

This is a good option. If a vendor is trying to sell Fortinet and Sangfor, but the customer's requirements are basic, they'll have a hard time convincing someone who believes in free, open-source software that pfSense is not suitable for them. The only cost is the hardware. But pfSense doesn't have after-sales support or some of the other features you might find in a commercial solution. 

I've heard that Fortinet is slightly more expensive than Sangfor. Then again, if Sangfor comes into the picture, maybe you would consider Sangfor.

I rate pfSense six out of 10. We want a product that has at least two WANs as well as fault tolerance or load balancing features, which pfSense also has, but we don't have the hardware or support. That's why we need to switch. However, if cost is a big issue, then I recommend pfSense for customers who can't afford a paid hardware and software solution. That was our issue because we're a government company, so our assets belong to the government. We have to think about where we want to spend money because it's the taxpayers' money. If your management doesn't understand the need to invest in IT, then you can consider this alternative.

I use pfSense as our primary firewall and router. We use several functions of pfSense, including the OpenVPN capabilities for mobile VPN and pfBlocker for DNS blocklisting. We also use Snort for IPS capabilities. 

The solution helped us secure the perimeter against vulnerabilities. I'm confident in the team's ability to keep things updated and all the security holes patched. It also has security add-ons like IDS, IPS, etc. We realized the benefits immediately.

My favorite thing about pfSense is its overall stability of the product. It's rock solid and low maintenance. I like that aspect. It doesn't cost much, and it's feature-rich, including mobile VPN, pfBlocker, and IPS. You have the flexibility to deploy it as bare metal or VM. 

It's very easy to add features to pfSense and to configure them. The solution's management page offers a single pane of glass view. You can clearly see the various features on the main page, and it isn't difficult to drill down into the other sections for more details. 

I can't say which features Plus provides that the community edition doesn't. I only knew that the Plus edition was the path forward. I was previously on a community edition for many years, but I've been on the Plus edition for at least a couple of years now.

One area of improvement would be better communication. They kind of left a lot of people in the dark and misled them about the pfSense Plus Edition. I feel like they automatically switched people over and then followed that up with a required subscription model. That aggravated a lot of customers, including me, but I stuck with it regardless.

I have used pfSense for nearly a decade.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for reliability. 

pfSense is highly scalable. The only limitation is the hardware you have behind it. As long as you can upgrade your hardware when you scale, pfSense will be able to support it. 

I rate pfSense support nine out of 10. I've typically gotten all the answers I sought when needed. They are highly responsive. I don't think I've ever had to wait more than an hour to get a reply. 

Positive

I wasn't involved in deploying pfSense. I maintain an existing one. For maintenance, you just need to periodically update to the latest version of pfSense Plus and maintain the different rulesets, such as firewall, IPS, and pfBlocker rules. 

The total cost of ownership of pfSense is rather low. After the recent subscription change, it doesn't cost us more than a couple hundred bucks a year. The only other thing I have to pay for is the business Snort license for the IDaaS IPS functionality. 

I rate pfSense nine out of 10. I recommend doing a white box deployment because it's easier on the hardware. I tried pfSense on a Netgate appliance and wasn't impressed with the performance compared to the white box I already had in place. I suggest starting with a spare server you have — Dell, HP, etc. 

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.

I had an appliance that died six months ago. Then I didn't want that hardware anymore, so I bought two new servers. A single power supply but dual on a network with three times four network cards. On that, I installed the pfSense (Community Edition).

From inside to outside, I have about 15 to 20 node servers and users going outside. From outside to inside, I have only three tech support people, myself and two other ones. With regard to clients using the platform from outside to inside, on the servers inside, I have about 1000.

I had some outages in the network and we provide services for our company. We sell mobile credits. The terminal gets access to our own server inside the network and if one internet fails, then the other one is still up and we have a back-up link on the devices. 

If the devices cannot send the first IP address, they make use of the second IP address, which is the back-up link to access the servers. In terms of outages, ever since I used pfSense, I have that feature. 

In terms of experiencing delays, the server has the primary IP and the secondary IP configured on the client terminals. The total solution works.

I'm still experimenting with some new features. I want to do a high availability configuration. I haven't done that yet, but I'm using OpenVPN, it's very handy. 

Some suggestions for improvement of pfSense are:

• Adjustment in the interfaces: I had to adjust those interfaces manually and of course that is a great feature that you can restore it but it is immediately also one point for improvement. If you don't have to adjust, if it's just stamped and it works, that's great.
• With regard to the Community Edition, when I installed it, we use Proxmox as an equivalent of PMWorks and I installed the Community Edition in Proxmox. That was very difficult to get to work at first. A lot of tweaking. That is very, very not easy.
• When I'm inside of my network and I go to a URL, the URL points to a server inside my network. It doesn't hang, but I don't get a response. It just stays blank. 
• I can imagine that inside my network, I am going outside, and it points to the public address, so I can reach it. With eSoft, without any adjustment, it worked, and I was able to do that. I went to search pfSense for an option, and I had some documents open to read about how it is done, but it isn't clear enough. It's not that easy. I would appreciate it if I could get easy help on that.

pfSense is very stable. My own disappointment is the appliance only worked for a year and two months. It might be just bad luck, but that was very disappointing.

I had to use pfSense Community Edition on a general desktop. That was done within three hours. It took me three hours just to get the hardware, download the software, and then set it up to get everything working again. 

After that, I ordered the new server with two servers: one has to be active and the other standby. I am going to try higher scalability on it using pfSense. 

The configuration is already on the servers. I did all this myself because of my experience. The utilization of the CPU, etc., it's very low. 

I like pfSense. It doesn't take too many resources and it's very stable.

I did not utilize pfSense customer support. You have documentation, there is enough documentation online to get you through. I haven't actually used tech support. When I bought the appliance, I was entitled to one year of tech support. I never used it, it wasn't needed. 

I previously evaluated eSoft by Untangle. Untangle is an open source company but you have to buy custom add-on's to get it to work. I bought eSoft and it's very good.

I am also the CEO of my company. This technical part, it's not my profession, but I get less and less time to invest, and more time playing around with this stuff. 

When we were growing, a small company, eSoft was small, so I needed a bigger one. I had to reset eSoft every week because of the growing traffic over it. I wanted a bigger one and it was not available. 

What I wanted to do was not possible with Untangle. Untangle was basic stuff. I bought the pfSense appliance and it's open source, but I support the project. 

I bought it and I got disappointed because I again wanted a bigger one. My first choice would be Cisco because of my background but Cisco is expensive.

eSoft was good. Before switching from eSoft to pfSense, Cisco at that time was not an option. 

Every software in our company, every desktop, every server, is open source. If it isn't CentOS then it's Red Hat or Ubuntu. 

Open source was preferred and pfSense was number one on the list.

Ever since the first time I used it, it's very straightforward, it's very easy.

My strategy was to get it connected to the internet first, then apply some rules for forwarding and VPN. 

The first one was very easy to set setup. VPN was not that straightforward but there is enough documentation to get you through it and that helped. 

In terms of time, the Community Edition took very long to install but once installed, to configure, it took around 15 to 20 minutes.

I did the setup all by myself. There is documentation online and that is sufficient. It's good enough, very good support in the documents.

If you haven't invested a lot of money, you will definitely see the return on investment with pfSense because you hardly spend anything, except for the hardware. 

With the appliances, pfSense should look into longevity issues. Your hardware should take, like Cisco's and others, years before they break. In terms of other retailer equipment, it's a safe bet towards pfSense.

That's why I purchased it but I have to look into the high availability. There is documentation of people that I know that are going to get it to work. I'm going to test it because that is our business that we are talking about also.

It should work because of the resale mobile credit for our customers. Another thing I will definitely try is the virtual IP because the virtual IP feature can bridge the two interfaces. The SSL certification is from Google. 

That was it for me, I'm 100% happy.

I prefer appliance licensing with pfSense (Community Edition). 

1. It's free. 
2. It's very stable. 
3. It's only on the hardware, it can be very fast.

Choose the appliances because it is nice to have the hardware cut out for it, i.e. the right hardware for the right software. 

I used to be a Cisco network expert. I used to train people and I've done some Cisco projects myself. I know Cisco by heart but I was less excited about Microsoft, so I went researching for open source solutions and I came across pfSense.

I was able to compare pfSense with Cisco. I used it for a client of mine as well, and it was interesting. After that, I started my own company and I came across pfSense again. 

I looked into pfSense. You have OPNsense from the Dutch and then you have pfSense. I've tried both and I like pfSense more.

I definitely plan to increase using pfSense. I am going for a higher capacity. If power fails or one server dies, or one gateway dies, the other servers will take over seamlessly. That's the ultimate for us.

I would definitely rate pfSense an eight and a half out of ten. Definitely eight and a half, not lower, could be a bit higher. Because it's stable, it's good. If the small issues I've mentioned are worked on then I would go to a 10.

I use pfSense for my home monitoring. It's used to build a subnet in my home environment to separate the IoT and my daily lab. 

PfSense can separate the network into subnets, which I can't do with an ordinary home router. It is relatively simple to add a multiple gigabit network port on the home router. For example, I can buy customized hardware with 6x 2.5 GbE. It helps me optimize performance. I use pfSense as my reverse proxy and have a single interface for managing all the SSL certificates using HAProxy.

The best feature of pfSense is that it can be installed on any customized hardware. I don't need to use Netgate hardware. I like the dynamic DNS update and firewall feature. Adding features is easy. If a feature is built-in, I can check it, install the package, and convert it. If it isn't built-in, I can't add it to pfSense. 

PfSense's interface could be improved. For example, the menu is ordered alphabetically instead of logically. The reboot button should be located near the shutdown, but it's in alphabetical order. Also, Netgear should create a home license for pfSense Plus for non-commercial use.

I have used pfSense since 2020, so it's been about four years.

I rate pfSense six out of 10 for stability.

I haven't tried to scale pfSense. I only use it locally. 

I rate Netgate support five out of 10. They are helpful for basic questions, but if I ask something more complicated, they refuse because I am not a higher tier of support. The response time is acceptable.

Neutral

I used OpenWrt before pfSense but for a relatively short period. PfSense is more feature-rich than previous solutions. 

Deploying pfSense is a bit complicated, but It's nothing I can't handle. It requires some maintenance, such as when they release updates.

PfSense saves me the time I would spend doing things separately. For example, building a VM to set the rear-end policy would take a lot of time. 

If it's not the free community edition, pfSense is relatively expensive for home use. It's okay for commercial use. The cost of ownership is low. I can save about a hundred dollars annually. 

I rate Netgate pfSense seven out of 10. I recommend pfSense for advanced users. It's a good solution if you want to learn more about networking in a company environment/. 

We use it for the backup line for the internet. When the internet is disconnected, we transfer to pfSense.

We only use it for the backup internet connection. It is effective. We have not had any problems.

We have not had any problems with it, and we also do not have a need for any new features. If anything, its reporting can be better. Sophos has better reporting than pfSense. Sophos has more detailed information. pfSense is not as detailed. It is summarized.

I have been using pfSense for six months.

It is stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

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

I have not used their support.

The installation of pfSense is very easy. It took two to three hours.

It is easy to maintain. We did not have to do any maintenance of pfSense since we installed it.

It is free. It is open source.

We have not used the VPN capabilities of pfSense. We also did not have a need to integrate pfSense with any service.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

We use it for its firewall features and VPN.

I provide it to my customers, and I also use it in my office. It is a very good solution for enterprises that need a VPN for their employees. It is the best way to provide a remote work facility to employees at a very low cost. Other solutions that I have had in the past were very expensive. Enterprises don't always have that kind of money to invest.

Its firewall ability is very good. It is very good and smooth at stopping attacks. It is better than others because we have to perform quite a bit of programming.

It is a very good and affordable solution for enterprises.

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.

I have been using this solution for four years. I am using it now, and I have also used it in the past.

It is very stable. Both pfSense and Netgate appliances are very stable. I have had some of these solutions working non-stop for about a year and a half.

It is very scalable. It is being used in an enterprise with 70 employees and about 30 terabytes of communication per month. I also have other small enterprises with 10 to 20 employees. In my office, I have four users. 

I usually use community forums for any tech support. I get very good information there.

I have also worked with Netgate appliances in the past. Both Netgate and pfSense are very stable.

It is not very easy, but it is straightforward. We have an agreement with the clients to have the equipment and install the appliance in three or four days.

It is very suitable in terms of the price. If a client cannot acquire a Netgate appliance, I provide a custom-made appliance, and I install the Community edition of pfSense. It is a very good and affordable solution for enterprises. Some of the clients pay monthly but usually, it is annually.

The maintenance cost varies depending on the kind of solution we have implemented. It could be €100 per month or around €800 per year.

I would absolutely recommend this solution. I would rate it a nine out of 10.

The solution is primarily used for anything to do with security. SMEs are using it to protect their businesses.

The companies we work with are fairly generic. What we see most is companies using the solution since it's affordable.

The price point is the most valuable aspect of the solution. Customers really value that.

Customers value the following features:  

• It's highly configurable
• It's flexible. 
• The features are easy to use.

The interface is somewhat challenging if you compare it to other commercial products. If you compare it to something like Sophos, where someone with decent firewall knowledge can get it up and running in a very short time, you need to be a fairly skilled security worker for this product.

Configuring the interface can be a bit hard.

We've found working with SAP networks challenging. The model that they have in terms of partner networks works very well in the US. However, it's very challenging in our part of the world. What works very well here (Kenya) is a distributor-reseller model, where you have the vendor appoint a distributor. Then the reseller can quickly serve the client. The partner support could be better here.

We've been selling the product for two or three years. 

The solution is quite stable. I'd rate stability nine out of ten. I rarely have a failure.

We largely work with SMBs. 

Support is excellent. 

Positive

We have used other products as well in the past. For example, I do have knowledge of Sophos. We are a reseller.  We've had it longer than pfSense. Sophos is a bit easier to set up. pfSense pricing is very good, however. It does need a more friendly UI.

The initial setup is a bit complex. There are other products that are easier to set up. The installation is not a problem, however, the complexity comes in with the configuration. The installation itself, which is basic, won't take long. The configuration process is longer since it can be from challenging to quite complex. 

There is some maintenance required. There are updates every quarter. Previous to the last update, you couldn't do an update without breaking. It's easier now, however, there is still maintenance. 

The solution is cost-effective, however, that does come at a cost to the client. They do have to buy the product in the US and ship it to Kenya. The total cost of ownership, including acquisition and support, can be quite competitive. 

We are resellers. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users.

I'd rate the product seven out of ten. There are a few challenges. However, it is stable and offers good support.