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.

I primarily use the solution for monitoring and learning about how to operate a firewall. I also use it for monitoring my home network as well as adblocking.

The solution is 100% free to use.

The product offers a lot of helpful plugins.

The solution is easy to use and has a elaborate GUI.

The initial setup is quite simple and straightforward.

The integration of the plugins into the GUI could be better. It's sometimes hard to find where a setting can be found or how it might interact with other settings. Some documentation is outdate and plugins sometime have no documentation. Information can always be found on the fora but for novice users this can be a challenge.

I've been using the solution for five years or so. It's been a while.

The solution is stable. Since last upgrade there hasn't been a crash, freeze or need for reboort. It's quite reliable.

I've tried to scale the solution previously. I've got two hardware platforms running. I wasn't quite able to run everything I wanted on a small ARM based device. Therefore,  I build my own Super-micro platform based on Intel Denverton.

It's actually easy to scale. It's just moving over most of the configuration: exporting, importing, or even going right into the original XML export file.

There are six users, 3 dozen of devices and a homelab server with VM running behind the solution at this time.

With what I am running now, I haven't had to reach out to technical support. However, an upgrade failed two years ago and I needed to contact technical support to get me the new image for the device. They were very efficient. I was satisfied with the level of support I received.

I've been switching back and forth between pfSense, OPNsense, and Untangle in the last five years or so.

OPNsense and Untangled are more integrated, however, more and more of the plugins are becoming paid offerings. OPNsense misses a plugin that pfSense has, Untangled it's adblocking is easy but not free.

The initial setup is not to complex.

It's good to have the basic information before attempting to set everything up. They've got a wiki with all basic information and there are the fora for questions.

I've got a CCNA certificate and that some comes in handy. For me, it works without any documentation, however, for a complete novice user you probably need some documentation to get you through the process.

Getting everything up and running only took about 30 minutes. You then have a complete firewall solution up-and-running.

There is some maintenance required. You do need to check for updates from time to time, for example. If you install more plugins more maintenance might be required to get everything tuned.

I handled the implementation myself. I have some knowledge about IP routing.

The solution is free to use. There are (currently) no licensing costs.

I'm just a home lab user.

I'd advise those considering the solution for your business to get a service contract.

It works great for someone with enough knowledge and time to get his head around everything. Otherwise, you need to look for a solution that offers support and can work with you on issues. It's nice to try to balance between open-source and support that costs money.

In general, I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

It has improved our security. Users can work offsite and connect to the VPN.

• The VPN and the firewall. They are reliable and easy to manage.
• The VPN is valuable for setting up secure remote connections to our network.
• pfSense has the OpenVPN package which is a well-supported VPN software.
• The "OpenVPN Client Export" package is really helpful in exporting the VPN client software on most popular devices: iOS/Android, Windows, Mac, Linux, and a handful of SIP handsets.

Network monitoring and device inventory could use some improvements. I'm using SpiceWorks for this because it never really worked in pfSense.

Network monitoring is a big topic and I realize there is plenty of software out there like SpiceWorks, NTOPNG, PDQ, Zabbix, and Nagios.

I can easily log into pfSense and check "Status > Gateways" to see if the internet connection is online. However, I don't usually know if there's a problem until it's been down for a while and someone tells me about it. I realize this is a tricky problem, because if the pfSense internet goes down, how is it supposed to send out an email that relies on the internet connection?

I guess the only way that would make sense, is if an external monitor was set up in the cloud or something that could check the status of pfSense at given intervals.

As far as clients being up/down is concerned, I can use some alternative software and maybe there's a package in pfSense that I can use for it.

Another idea for pfSense device inventor: What if pfSense collected a list of newly connected clients? For security, it's important to know about all the clients connected to the network. A simple list of new clients that connect would be nice to have.

The alternative would be to lock pfSense down to only make address reservations, but that just creates more work for the Network Admin.

It seems to run stable, as long as the hardware is good. I tried running pfSense on a USB flash drive. After a month, I was having to re-install/re-configure pfSense on a new flash drive. I did that for a couple of months and collected a bunch of broken flash drives.

Even though their online documents claim that pfSense can run on flash drives, it really just breaks the flash drive after a month or less.

I have noticed that pfSense boots up really slowly as more users are connected to it. Occasionally, you have to re-install or delete broken packages that freeze up the system. However, the core pfSense software runs great.

I have never used pfSense technical support so I can't rate them. I used Google and figured everything out on my own. I do my own support.

We did not use a previous solution. I recommend pfSense because it's free, open source software.

The setup of pfSense was very straightforward for the most part. Usually, when something isn't working, it's because the "Apply" button wasn't clicked.

Spend at least $300 or more on a good pfSense box. Use a hard drive, and not a USB flash drive for pfSense storage.

We looked at some other solutions, but pricing and licensing was the problem. I looked at Palo Alto and SonicWall.

The learning curve is steep, but once you get the basics down, it's very robust and easy to use. There are plenty of resources online about setting it up.

• 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 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.

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 mostly use basic firewall services like blocking unwanted traffic and I use the geolocation tools to predict where potential attacks could come from. That's the main purpose, to protect our business network using pfSense.

Within our organization, with a single installation, about 500 users are covered.

The flexibility of adding new kinds of services without spending any money can't be beaten. We can compare services like IP blocking, blacklisting and DNS blocking, content filtering, and even deep packet inspection with other larger enterprise firewalls.

The interface is not very shiny and attractive. Most of the people that use pfSense are highly skilled, so they don't even bother to go the extra mile when it comes to configuration or any protection mechanisms. With other firewalls, with just one click or with the assistance of a wizard, the service is already configured. With pfSense, you have to have some time to do your own research regarding how to fine-tune it. If that could be improved, then life would be much easier. This would help any entry-level users to adapt to the platform. 

Netgate, the mother organization that manages the pfSense platform, should offer organized security feeds for its users so that they can avoid configuring multiple types of feeds in multiple locations. That could generate extra revenue for the company, too.

We have been using pfSense for five years.

That's the fun part. It's completely reliable in terms of resources that it needs to run. In terms of stability, once it's configured and properly tuned, it will do its job. Still, with firewalls these days, you can't simply configure and forget — it's not like that. You have to look into it every day or every once in a while and if any new traits or new protection mechanisms need to be built, upgraded, or re-tuned, you have to do that. Otherwise, the platform is rock solid. It doesn't fail.

The expandability and the high availability configuration of the system are good.

With pfSense, we've never had to send an email to a Netgate official support organization. We follow the forum discussion — the community. We'd ask an expert in the community. That's how we deal with any issues.

One of our clients wants to switch from FortiGate to another comparable solution because FortiGate is not stable when it comes to pricing. Over the past three years, they've increased their pricing to almost double. For this reason, our client wants to explore some other options which will be more predictable in terms of costs.

It's definitely complex compared to other firewalls because you have to configure everything, read a lot of documents, and following a lot of formulas and templates. Everyone has to develop their own recipes to work with. There is no proper way forward.

That is another fun part of this solution. There is no license. You don't have to pay anything. It's completely free. The one thing that you can buy is a security feed like an IP feed or a DNS feed. This kind of thing can be easily bought, but if you have the passion and expertise, you can arrange all of these types of feeds for free. It may be slightly different between how frequently those feeds are updated compared to the paid version. Sometimes, it lags behind for 24 hours or 12 hours, but it works.

We are really happy with the system performance, overall, but it depends. For example, right now we have a client who is trying to switch from FortiGate to another solution that is less costly. We recommended and talked with them about pfSense, but despite it being a cheaper and really rock-solid solution with good performance, they were not comfortable using open source. We also offered them Sophos, SonicWall, and Palo Alto — they finally chose SonicWall. I don't know why. It completely depends on the client. 

I would absolutely recommend this solution to others. This is definitely one of the most powerful firewalls for peace of mind. The fact is, as long as you are aware of the challenges that you have to face when implementing and managing the firewall, day-to-day, then this could be the best option for you.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.

In the past, we had different locations in different countries, and in every location, we had the same pfSense firewall. Therefore, the connection between our different locations was good and manageable. However, in the last two years, we have had only one location here in Belgium, thus the performance of the pfSense has been good, and we can manage great with the open ports and the closed ports, but now a firewall has to be a little bit more than just that.

I do not have any big malware in my network, partly because of pfSense. The firewall blocks every malfunctioning malware or virus. Also, the access from outside our network has to be blocked, and I know by experience that our pfSense is very closed. You have to open every port in order to make sure that there can be a connection from outside our network.

1. I can manage it easily by myself.
2. The interaction between the same firewalls is good. We can connect VPNs over the same firewall easily.
3. It is an open source solution. Therefore, the price is good.
4. OPNsense.
5. The performance and functionality are good.

A malware blocker should be included. I do not know if it is included yet. However, until now, we have not experienced a large malware invasion.

There are a few features not included, and when you have to use those features, you have to pay for them.

I know that I should change the current pfSense solution. I should change it because we have only one key port on it. Our internet access also has a key port now, I should have two key ports, one to the LAN and one to the WAN.

Therefore, I want to change it, because it gives us less speed. I could provide the speed, but there are not two key ports on it. Therefore, I now have to choose a new pfSense solution, or I could look at another vendor similar to what we have.

I am satisfied with the stability.

Scalability was less important. When we started, we did not have to scale the pfSense. In the seven years that I have used the pfSense, once I had to renew it because the hardware was broken or was defective. The second one was a little bit faster and had more memory, so I did not have to scale it again. Therefore, the scalability has not been so important to us until now.

We came from OneStart. OneStart was out of data and at end of life. Thus, we had to switch. pfSense was originally proposed to us by the dealer and our external IT help.

The initial setup was straightforward, therefore I wanted to continue using the product.

I did not do it alone. I had help from the dealer. Once installed, I can manage now to change little things. For the initial setup, I was involved with it, but I did not do it myself.

It was straightforward to buy from pfSense.

From Sonic Wall, their price is much higher, because for every feature that you want to add, you have to pay. I can do the same things with pfSense, but everything is included in one price.

We originally evaluated Cisco, WatchGuard, and Barracuda. We chose pfSense because of the price and it was open source software. At the time, our team was called OpenERP (now called Odoo), so open source software was an advantage.

I would recommend it. It is manageable and straightforward. It is not so complex. You have to know the different rules, but you can manage it easily. The performance is good.