Netgate pfSense Reviews

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.

I use pfSense for the security of my company.

With pfSense we have low balances for the internet and the internet is always available. When our service provider fails, it takes communication to another service. The employees always have access to the servers that they need. They always have an abundant flow or they always switch to the lead when the internet fails.

It has a good web cache. I used to use a DHCP server and DNS server. For my company, I use pfSense as a load balancing application.

The HA proxy is the main feature that it's used for. 

Many people have problems setting up the web cache for the web system.

They should put an anti-spam in a web application firewall.

I have been using pfSense since 2006. 

The stability is rock-solid. 

I think scalability is good enough. 

I do the maintenance for pfSense.

There is a lot of information in the online forums. 

I have used other solutions but I chose pfSense because it's easy to use and configure.

The initial setup was very easy.

Before I set up, I wrote down all the levels on a paper and I drew the plan I wanted to protect. After that, I deployed it pfSense. I filtered the access to the users and to the servers. Everyone has the access that they need.

The deployment took less than an hour.

It's open-source. You can pay for support if you need. 

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten. 

• Fail-over of between multiple ISPs
• Firewall
• Graphs
• Real time interface monitoring
• The web UI gives you an overview of everything you want to see
• For an open-source solution it has performed fantastically
• OSPF
• It contains loads of optional packages e.g Snort (IDS), asterix (PBX), network monitors etc.

We have pfSense across three sites where it manages the VPN and firewalls between them. Also, it has reduced costs drastically and has outperformed its expectations.

The load balancing can be improved as it uses tier levels to balance. For it to function most effectively, you often need to have the same bandwidth on the ISPs.

We've used it for six years.

There were no issues with the deployment.

There were stability issues with certain versions, but fixes were released and the right hardware helped.

We do have issues as the right hardware needs to be deployed in order to expand correctly in certain areas.

We use a vendor team, Shrike Technologies who have been excellent, and once a while I consulted the pfSense cookbook.

The online forum has lots of answers.

We previously used Monowall and switched because we needed more functionality.

We used a vendor team, Shrike Technologies whose experience was very high.

Pricing is fantastic, we have gold subscription which covers on-line backup of device configurations, premium support, webinars and lots more.

Proper planning is necessary in order to select the right hardware and configuration required (rules, services etc.).

The easy to use GUI. Less training is required for the newcomers in IT.

Any new hire straight out of school who has network knowledge is able to operate the software without the complication of a CLI.

There were some bugs in the version we used.

We have been using the solution for one year.

We had a stability issue. A handful of times the firewall box froze and needed a power cycle.

We had a scalability issue. The fail over did not work automatically.

Our infrastructure manager tried contacting their support but it was not helpful. Response time was bad as expected for an open source software.

FreeBSD box was an old setup from 1998, so it was time to upgrade without it being costly.

The setup was straightforward.

It's open source so it's free. We did not buy their hardware.

We evaluated Cisco .

If your organization has the budget, go with a paid solution. We've had our days with it and went with a paid solution (another firewall) due to the company growing and we couldn't have any downtime. It would likely cost the company more money with downtime than to purchase a good quality firewall.

The solution is fairly scalable when it comes to integrating with other applications and data sets. They have a lot more customization compared to the competition.

They could improve their commercial stance and be more agile when it comes to the commercial pricing of enterprise deals.

For a feature update, they should increase the API integrations into decentralized identity platforms making it stronger.

I have been using the solution for two years.

In my experience, this solution is able to increase its scalability.

Technical support is very supportive. When we are in contact with them, there is no problem at all.

The setup was straightforward.

When doing deployments of the solution we generally average approximately six to eight weeks.

The pricing is lower than some of its competitors. However, If you do not have a strong technical team and are trying to get pfSense to do some of the same functions as some of the competitors such as Fortinet or Palo Alto, It will cost you a lot in professional services to do it. You then lose the low cost-benefit of this solution.

I have evaluated Fortinet, their pricing is reasonable for the SME market, but they are not enterprise players. The strongest solutions in this field are certainly SentinelOne and Carbon Black, they outperform everything else.

I would recommend the solution to others.

I rate pfSense an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is to protect our business network.

I like the fact that it is open-source.

The Surakarta and the web blocking functionality seems to be quite good. It's not perfect, but none of them are.

The interface is straightforward and easy to use.

I would like to see the dashboard modernized.

If you look at some of the other providers, their dashboard is more modern looking.

Also, simplifying the rules for the GeoIP. Making it simpler to understand would be an improvement.

I have been using pfSense for approximately one year.

It seems to be relatively stable. I haven't had very many issues.

If I do have any issues, it is more to do with the way that I have configured it. Other than that, it works fine.

It's a scalable solution. We have 14 computers with more powerful hardware that allows us to deal with larger networks.

Apart from what you see on the interface, you can also use the command line to create a cluster if you need to.

The initial setup is straightforward once you read the manual.

I did evaluate another solution but felt that the cost was too high for what it was. Based on the consumer market, I didn't feel that it was at the enterprise level.

I would recommend reading the manual and the administration book. It has all of the proper information.

Many will jump into pfSense without reading the manual properly, or taking the time to understand the definitions, and how to set it up properly.

If you don't, then you might have a bad experience, which would not be fair to the product.

To give a fair comparison and trial, definitely read the technical documentation before implementing it.

Given the fact that it's open-source, relatively easy to use, and it seems to do the job quite well, I would rate pfSense a ten out of ten. I think it deserves that.

The most valuable features for me and my current company are the open VPN capabilities and the firewall service.

pfSense has provided my current organization with remote access to the internal services and additional protection via its firewall.

I would like more add-ons/packages for extending pfSense which are approved by the main community.

I have been using pfSense for the last five years, in three different companies in Denmark.

We never had any stability issues, even during high load usages.

We never had any scalability issues. It's easy to add additional services, or even a second or third pfSense product which works with the others.

Unfortunately, I never used the technical support. However, the community forums provided me with answers to the implementation and configuration questions that I had.

I was using FortiGate and other firewall and VPN solutions. They were all ou0dated and too complicated to maintain. The change was made due to the ease of use of pfSense and the features that it provides.

For an IT person, the setup was more or less straightforward.

pfSense is free and open source software. Modification is easy and you can adapt it to your company's requirements.

As I already had experience with pfSense and I knew how it would help me and my company, I didn't evaluate other options.

The product is flexible, scalable, and has logic in using it. It is easy to integrate and implement into your IT environment.

We use Netgate pfSense for load balancing. 

The tools' most valuable feature is load balancing. 

Netgate pfSense needs to improve the configuration for a VPN. 

I have been working with the product for three months. 

I rate the product's stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate Netgate pfSense's scalability a seven out of ten. 

I have used online documentation and hence haven't contacted the support yet. 

I rate the tool's deployment a nine out of ten. Its deployment takes only a few hours to complete. 

We did the deployment in-house. 

I use the product's free version. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.