Netgate pfSense Reviews

I prefer this product because it is open source. Another thing is that it is Unix-based, so it is not affected by viruses or attacks. Support is also available.

With the right hardware, its VPN capabilities and performance are amazing.

From my usage, controlling the bandwidth for each user is valuable. Also, the availability of working as a backup or aggregating downloads is useful. All these capabilities are key.

Its interface is simple and easy.

Maybe they can add two-factor authentication.

I have been working with this solution for almost four to five years.

It is very stable. I would rate it a ten out of ten for stability.

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

We have 60 to 65 users.

I have not taken any technical support from Netgate. I was able to get all the information from the web or Netgate forums. I did not use their technical support because it is an open-source and free edition.

I used OPNsense.Using the module for controlling the bandwidth for the users in OPNsense required payment. There was also a subscription, and I dislike subscribing to any service.

It was not complex. It was straightforward. They had a wizard with ten steps. I just had to fill in the information.

It took me about 45 minutes to be completely up and running with my configuration.

There were no third parties involved. It was implemented on-site.

I am using the free version. 

I would recommend pfSense to others. It is free. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

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. 

After successfully using pfSense at home to manage IoT devices and separate their traffic from my computers and gaming consoles, I'm now evaluating its suitability for our hospital system. As the IT manager, I'm impressed and considering replacing our current firewalls with Netgate pfSense appliances.

I implemented pfSense at home to proactively prevent security issues on my home devices.

Netgate pfSense is flexible allowing us to add plugins.

It has improved my home network's security, making it significantly harder for attackers to access my data.

Netgate pfSense works well to prevent data loss and helps optimize performance.

As a first-time NetGate pfSense user, I've been impressed by several features: easy integration for blocking traffic by country, straightforward creation and management of firewall rules, and the ability to extend functionality through plugins.

I'd love a centralized management system for multiple pfSense appliances. This is where Netgate could improve. Redesigning my network for seven pfSense units sounds like a daunting task, especially with the need for individual configuration. A single pane of glass for managing everything at once would be a game-changer, streamlining the process significantly.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for five years.

I would rate the stability of Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

Based on what I have heard from other users and what I have read, Netgate pfSense can scale.

The deployment was easy, but I took a cautious, phased approach to avoid disrupting household internet access. Once complete, the upgrade from my previous Netgate appliance allowed me to take advantage of SFP+ ports, so I put ten gigabytes into it and continued fine-tuning the system.

The initial deployment for basic functionality was completed within a few hours, but achieving full functionality took approximately two weeks. 

Netgate pfSense stands out as a cost-effective option that delivers excellent value. While I haven't personally used their support at home, a vendor I spoke with praises it highly. Their reputation suggests phenomenal hospital-grade support might be worthwhile for a critical environment like ours.

Netgate's maintenance contracts are significantly more affordable compared to other vendors, demonstrating their competitive pricing and commitment to customer value.

I would rate Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

Netgate pfSense is low maintenance.

Before committing to any network or security hardware, including Netgate pfSense, I recommend a Proof of Concept to ensure it meets your specific needs. Don't rely solely on others' suggestions. Thankfully, pfSense offers downloadable virtual images, allowing you to experiment with its features before purchasing physical equipment.

One of our clients operates multiple branches, and we've implemented a solution involving feature and IP address tunnels connecting these branches. The main branch serves as the hub, housing the Central PBX and providing services to the other branches.

We use pfSense to handle VPN connections, extending to remote workers in our various branches as well.

The feature I find most valuable for fulfilling network security requirements is pfBlockerNG. It offers exceptional visibility and filtering capabilities, without the need for dedicated hardware or recurring expenses. Unlike other solutions, pfBlockerNG operates seamlessly and continuously without additional costs or maintenance concerns.

The traffic shaping and bandwidth management features of pfSense significantly enhance our network performance. The inclusion of a QoS wizard simplifies the process, eliminating the complexity often associated with configuring QoS on other platforms like Cisco routers. With pfSense, utilizing the wizard streamlines the setup process, making it accessible and effective for users without requiring an advanced understanding of networking intricacies.

There have been specific incidents where the reporting and monitoring tools of pfSense played a crucial role in identifying and resolving network issues. In one instance, we received complaints about internet connectivity problems affecting productivity across the business. Upon investigation, I discovered that the issue stemmed from excessive bandwidth consumption caused by multiple HD camera streams being watched simultaneously. Utilizing pfSense's reporting and monitoring tools, I quickly pinpointed the source of the problem and implemented measures to alleviate the network congestion. These tools are invaluable for identifying resource-intensive processes and resolving performance issues effectively.

The process of integrating pfSense with other tools and services has proven to be quite straightforward thus far. While there may be a slight learning curve at the outset, particularly for those less familiar with networking concepts, it becomes manageable with experience.

The most valuable feature, for instance, is the ease of migrating configurations between different Netgate devices housed in the same box. This capability simplifies troubleshooting, as it allows for faster identification of DNS discrepancies or any other issues compared to proprietary systems. With pfSense, network configurations adhere to standard practices, facilitating troubleshooting without the need for complex overlays or policies. The interface, prioritizes network principles, making it intuitive for those familiar with networking concepts to navigate and achieve desired outcomes efficiently.

It lacks a solution for SD-WAN integration. I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial. Partnering with trusted antivirus providers such as Bitdefender or Sophos as an add-on feature could enhance the antivirus capabilities of pfSense. Incorporating a centralized management console for easier administration would be a valuable addition.

I have been working with it for over five years.

The stability of pfSense is exceptional. I've only encountered one instance of hardware failure, which was due to an electrical issue. Otherwise, all other deployments have been reliable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The scalability of pfSense is impressive. I've witnessed its capabilities firsthand, especially when it was deployed in environments supporting up to seven thousand employees. I would rate it nine out of ten. Currently, pfSense is our top recommendation for clients, tailored to their budget and specific requirements. Depending on the client's needs, such as compliance with PCI or HIPAA regulations, we may suggest models that offer corresponding features and evaluations of network security. This flexibility allows us to cater to clients with varying compliance needs, ensuring they receive suitable recommendations.

In terms of technical support, I primarily rely on the forums whenever I have a question or need technical information. I've found that the answers I seek are often readily available there. While pfSense does offer paid support packages, I haven't had the opportunity to utilize them yet.

The main difference between Fortinet and pfSense lies in their integration with different vendors. While pfSense offers integration with multiple commercial antivirus solutions, Fortinet primarily provides its own antivirus offering. However, the effectiveness of the antivirus provided by pfSense may not be as high as some other options available in the market. In terms of cost, pfSense offers a one-time payment for cloud services, providing continuous service without ongoing fees. On the other hand, Fortinet's pricing structure may seem appealing initially, but if you wait until close to the license expiration date, the renewal cost significantly increases, which could result in unexpectedly high expenses.

The initial setup was straightforward.

To set up pfSense, you start by configuring firewall rules to allow the necessary traffic. Once that's done, you can explore and download additional security packages from the package manager to enhance your environment's security. The initial setup is quick, typically taking around ten minutes for a basic configuration. However, if you're integrating features like pfBlockerNG, it may take a bit longer as you need to ensure you're not inadvertently blocking any essential services. Despite this, the task can be managed by a single person, such as an IT manager.

Maintenance tasks, such as checking logs and ensuring updates are running smoothly, are typically handled by two designated individuals. They connect to the firewall periodically to perform these checks. While we do have a management console, it's not fully integrated with the pfSense Manager (PSM) solution. Having a dedicated management console that allows remote management of all wireless devices would be ideal, as it would streamline the process of making changes across multiple devices.

The price point is highly competitive. The cost varies depending on the license type, such as licenses for eight to five support or twenty-four seven support. Opting for twenty-four-seven support significantly increases the price, reaching around ten thousand to thirteen hundred dollars. I would rate it four out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

Our most common use cases are for our corporate firewalls, and currently, I'm using it as our school firewall. So it's our perimeter firewall. So, we're running three firewalls on our network. 

So we have separate networks each because we have, like, different use cases. So we're running three at the moment.

We've been running it for six years now, and so far, it's been good.

Netgate pfSense has been utilized to create and manage VPNs within our organization. So we're running pfSense with VPN on one of our private cloud providers. So we're using IPSec VPN on that.

For everyday tasks, we just get alerts. It's anything that's suspicious, including from our Netgate. So, it's part of how we maintain cybersecurity in our school. This is working alongside our endpoint security solution. 

We were using an open-source endpoint solution for that. So we're integrating that with the one we have on pfSense. 

The ease of use. Like, it's easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise. For me, it's quite easy and friendly to use.

We have a set of rules so that it can manage all of our rules. We have a complex network here in our school. We have a lot of rules running, so it's really easy to match all of those rules using pfSense.

Integrating pfSense with other products was a bit tedious at first. We researched and tested for about a month, so it was not too hard but not instant.

For the third-party packages, I'd rather have it built-in, like a core feature of pfSense, part of the core model. This feature of pfSense would be great, instead of relying on a third-party module.

I have been using it for six years. 

It's about 95% stable, not perfect, but quite reliable.

If I needed to scale it and merge our pfSense machines into one, I'd prefer a dedicated hardware appliance instead of running multiple x86 servers on the firewall.

We have around 4,000 endpoints. 

I reached out to support for an unusual CPU usage issue after an upgrade. They were responsive, and even though I ultimately found a solution, they were helpful in diagnosing.

Positive

We used Fortinet. We opted for pfSense because of budget limitations. pfSense was a more affordable solution for our requirements.

pfSense is easier to manage and offers modularity for features. With FortiGate, everything is there, but we might not need everything, and too many features can be challenging.

The initial setup is very straightforward and intuitive. 

We use the pfSense software directly and install it on our rack servers. So, we're adding three instances of that.

I handle all the deployment processes. I am the core manager for the entire infrastructure, so I manage and deploy everything.

I consider how many users and gigabytes we expect on the network and try it on a test network first to validate before actual deployment.

Just my core team members manage the whole deployment, so that's enough for us.

Migrating the old one to the new one took around a month because we have many rules, and the new Netgate was quite different.

From the maintenance perspective, it is not difficult at all. 

While configuring or maintaining pfSense, we had high CPU usage on one firewall, but the GPAC subscription provided a good response. The support team was helpful, and we resolved it in a few hours. So, we had good support because of the support subscription. 

We just have the yearly support subscription.

I just found pfSense online. I just tried it out on a home lab and found it worked well enough for us. So, just started out, like, searching online and responded and tried it.

I would advise you to try to estimate your network first and do a test network just to have a proof of concept of what you want to run and check the routes you want to run against your network, making sure that your requirements are valid before deploying it.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

THe solution is used as a primary gateway with two lease lines of 450 Mbps total. Around 200 users are under it. 

There is no server or database in the environment. Users use only the internet extensively. We have three separate locations in the same building. Web filtering, IDS/IPS are the obvious requirements. Squid and Snort open-source packages are installed. 

Our organization is ISO 27001 certified. 

An active directory was implemented to control IAM. Synology NAS with RAID for file sharing and off-premise data backup on the cloud. We have mostly L-2 switches to connect nodes. 

Endpoint security product is another layer of security there. 

The Netgate 6100 Max Model is equipped with pfSense Plus software. We configured it last week and replaced the Mikrotik router. There are many improvements, including more visibility, more control over Internet usage, and a robust VPN (no license required). 

There are multiple lease lines and load balancing, reserve or restrict bandwidth based on traffic priority, and user data transfer quotas.

We have almost no complaints about low speed, choking of the internet, or link problems. Now we can see and observe connections logs also. Usage reports are another improvement. 

It's an ideal gateway solution for small and medium businesses, i.e., around 300 devices can be easily handled. 

We received a simple router, however, there are various tools/software to install to activate the full feature of pfSense plus products such as Squid for proxy, Snort for IDS/IPS, Squidguard for content filtering, etc. You can find many open-source software under the package manager tab on the dashboard of pfSense. 

Traffic shaping and load balancing are excellent features. 

pfSense Plus software is a powerful firewall, router, and VPN solution that leverages a number of highly-regarded open-source projects. The software competes effectively with far more expensive commercial alternatives and is used by hundreds of thousands of businesses, educational institutions, and government agencies all over the world. Leading secure-networking features and capabilities include:

Ad blocker (pfBlockerNG)
Captive Portal
CARP/HA
DNS Server
DHCP Server
HTTP transparent/web/reverse proxy (Squid)
IP/Country block list (pfBlocker)
IDS/IPS - Snort
Packet capture/inspection
Port forwarding
QOS/rate limiters
Software load balancer (HA Proxy)
Traffic monitoring
Traffic logging, statistics, and graphs
Traffic shaping
VLAN
Wake-on-LAN
Website blocker (pfBlocker)

and many more packages. Just install and play with it.

There must be a wizard section as per the use case. For example, if we need a simple firewall there must be an auto-install of most required packages. In the same way, if we need a more strict firewall, then different configuration settings.

There must be a more easy-to-use GUI.

More documentation should be available within the package manager.

A visible ON/OFF button must be there and can be easily configured as required. 

An additional non-us electrical plug must be inside the box.

There should be an option to upgrade RAM (i.e. 8GB to 16GB). It can enhance the capacity of the proxy server. 

I bought this solution 15 days back and configured it last week. 

It's an enterprise product and very stable. 

The solution is very easily scalable. 

As of now, we have not taken support. 

Positive

We were using a simple Mikrotik router with the limited capabilities of a firewall. 

It's not straightforward to set up. That said, it is not complex. Just use Netgate documentation and get help from YouTube resources.

We implemented it via an in-house team. My system admin configured it with the help of available documentation. 

The solution offers matchless ROI. There is no license for the VPN and no annual fees. It is a simple product. 

The product is very cost-effective and has no requirement for additional licenses.

The setup is not easy. Users need more technical expertise to configure it. This is not advisable for non-IT users. 

We checked Sophos and Sonicwall. Due to more configurable options and lower prices, and even no requirement of licenses, we decided to move to pfSense. 

This is the best solution with very impressive cost-effectiveness. 

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.

Most of my clients want to use it as a firewall. There are two things that they're looking for. Number one is bandwidth management so that if there are multiple links, they can share bandwidth for their staff. The other important aspect that has come up recently is for IDS and IPS.

Currently, for me, the most valuable feature is the implementation of pfBlockerNG. The community behind pfSense is really strong. 

In terms of the features, the simplicity of the installation is a significant advantage. Out of the box, I am ready to start using pfSense after installation, which is very important. It allows minimal downtime before integration, enabling use even on a weekday without users knowing there's a new firewall in place. 

The key thing I found is saving on the cost of equipment. Whether CapEx or OpEx, we appreciate this.

The user interface needs improvement. Even though it's a system that's easy to get working upon installation, the configurations are not intuitive. The interface needs to be friendlier. That's the only complaint I have about pfSense.

I have been using pfSense since 2008.

One issue is due to bugs and broken links.

I have not had the chance to experience Netgate technical support, because most of the time I have been able to sort out the issues with forums.

Positive

Before Netgate, I used a lot of MikroTik. In comparison, pfSense is more robust in terms of the feature set. The open form of the GPL system makes it better than MikroTik.

The steps to implement involve aligning with the key aspects I am going to implement, knowing what they already have running, and what needs to be mirrored and improved. I usually have it pre-installed, tested, and then deployed.

I have a team. There are around three of us, and we do this together.

I would recommend it a lot because it's a proper firewall, and there are no issues apart from the interface and broken links. It's very easy to recommend pfSense without even going through the POC stage. For me, pfSense is a ten out of ten.