Netgate pfSense Reviews

• Load balancing multi-WAN (High latency)
• Queues with CBQ algorithm
• Traffic shaper (limiter)
• Aliases for grouping anything 
• VPN (OpenVPN)
• DHCP server (with ARP reservation)
• DNS forwarder
• Firewall 
• Graphs for monitoring
• NAT

Before using pfSense:

• I always had problems with internet connection for users
• I had no idea what users were downloading and, therefore, what was killing the internet connection
• I did not have not statistics on the quality and stability of the internet
• To get a VPN I had use a pay software that offered lower performance than I have now

I always need to open different graphs on different windows of the web browser to have an overview,  Therefore, it would be good, if it is possible, to have a customizable, large dashboard.  At the moment though, the others options are good because I am a beginner with the pfSense.

I've used it for six months.

No issues encountered.

There was an issue with the Layer 7 filters on an old PC.

No issues encountered.

No previous solution was used.

It's very straightforward, even for beginners.  There is documentation and different tutorials and videos available in different languages.

I implemented it myself.

The only cost to set up is the hardware for a standard PC and any ethernet card extensions.

No, as I asked a friend they told me to get pfSense without doing other research.

Don't install pfSense on a machine with only the minimal recommended hardware configuration, but on a better machine.

pfSense is used as our firewall and router.

The performance is good.

It is easy to use.

I have been working with this solution for so long now that it has become easy. It is much simpler than other solutions such as Fortinet.

I expect a better interface with more log analysis because I create my own interface.

I have been using pfSense for a long time. Since the beginning.

I have the latest version.

pfSense is a stable product.

pfSense is a scalable solution.

I have not contacted technical support.

Previously, I worked with Fortinet FortiGate, Linux, and OPNsense.

I have tested all that are available on the market and pfSense is more.

The initial setup is easy. 

The first installation took an hour to complete, but the configuration is another part. It's about the complexity of my network because I have provided services from a firm and every company has a different setup.

I was able to complete the installation myself.

I am not aware of the licensing costs.

I would recommend pfSense to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate pfSense an eight out of ten.

My primary use case is for controlling incoming traffic from various countries and blocking IP addresses if necessary. I'm the company director and a user of pfSense.

A key feature is being able to block IP addresses. This is a good product and I have no issues with it.

I'd like to see some instructional videos as opposed to documentation. It would be helpful for beginners and start-up companies. 

I've been using this solution for a couple of months. 

This solution is stable.

It's worth giving this product a shot and testing it out because it's free and community based.

I would rate the community version a 10 out of 10. 

We use pfSense for the firewall, VPN server, client-server, and internal network.

pfSense helped us during COVID-19 because we used OpenVPN to connect from home.

I like the Package Manager feature. 

The main problem with pfSense is that it lacks adequate ransomware protection. I would also like pfSense to be more robust like Cisco or Fortinet.

I've been using pfSense for two or three years.

The stability is very good.

Scalability is very good. We didn't have to slow down, and we worked with it for months.

The pfSense page, community support, and YouTube tutorials are good.

The initial set up is complex and took two days to deploy.

pfSense is open-source.

I like Fortinet and Sophos as they have more tools to prevent ransomware attacks. Sophos has a client-server, and pfSense doesn't have that. Fortinet and Sophos are under a paid license, and pfSense is open-source and free. This is the main difference.

I would recommend pfSense to potential users. I would tell them to just read the tutorials because they're very useful. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give pfSense a nine.

We have a hosted platform with our client. We've built a VPN site and the solution is deployed as a VM. The client connects to it and it protects anything that's behind it like a regular firewall. Everything we have there is hosted in a data center, all our servers and things that clients connect to. So we're using it as our gateway device. We are customers of pfSense and I'm the owner of our company. 

I like the site-to-site VPN and the basic firewall features.

Right now we have to use a lot of third party plugins with other providers that have their own built-in features so I'd like to see layer 7 advanced firewall features included in the solution. It would definitely improve the product. 

We've used pfSense over the past three years. 

The stability is very good, it's just that it's not as easy to use as SonicWall. There are limits as to who we can put to work on the solution, a limited number of our engineers work with it.

The solution is very scalable. We don't sell pfSense to the end users, we use it ourselves. Our clients have SonicWall but the whole company benefits from the firewall. 

We've never used technical support but we're looking into it now and I think it's very comparable to SonicWall.

It's harder to set up pfSense than SonicWall. Only a couple of people in our company can do that. 

We are currently using the open source solution so it's free. 

There's a learning curve to this solution, it's not as simple to use as some of the other GUI based firewalls. You need to play around with it a bit. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

pfSense is very valuable as previously I had to use Microsoft's TMG solution. After some research, when I got stuck configuring a physical machine with many VMs, I noticed that pfSense, as a firewall, uses less resources. I started to test it on a simple PC, and I have now seen how I can benefit from open source software. So therefore, the most valuable feature is that it uses less resources than a physical machine.

It is free of charge. I am living in country where this is not so important yet, as no one controls the licenses of software. However, our company tries to look forward and prevent issues that may happen in the future. So it being free, and easy to configure, are the benefits for us.

I think that areas for improvement are not closely related with the work of pfSense but with its components, meaning the packages. I am faced with little problems when I install none-recommended (beta) versions. But, I also understand that these versions are mostly for developers, who are trying to contribute their best efforts for open source.

I have been using pfSense as a firewall solution for approximately eight months.

When I started to test it in a real environment, it was on a physical machine and I was faced with problems. It was that the freeBSD wouldn't detect my USB keyboard, but after waiting a while, it eventually worked. In a virtual environment, I had no problems.

Just once. One of our customers had an issue with their electrical stability. The electrical supply was jumping, and playing about, and when it was happening pfSense stopped.

It depends actually, and to be honest, I have never used all the available features of this product, but I believe that there should not be any issues with the scalability.

I have never used the customer service for pfSense. I have read the manuals, but have never contacted customer service.

I have never used it.

I previously used Microsoft's TMG solution. I switched because after some research when I got stuck configuring a physical machine with many VMs, I decided to use pfSense.

The Captive Portal (pass through MAC) feature.

We have been able to gain control of our bandwidth and improve our web security.

VPN ability needs to be improved.

I've used it for one year.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

9/10.

8/10.

Before pfSense I was using a different solution, but I like this product due to the low cost of hardware, its stability, web interface, and the fact its open source etc.

it's a straightforward setup.

I implemented this, in our office, myself.

There was no cost.

We didn't look at any other options.

I would recommend that you use and implement this product. I say that because it is open source, has a low hardware cost, its fabulous web interface, the backup and restore feature, the pass through MAC, and many other features etc.

It is a stable solution. It is also easy to install and can be deployed and maintained by one team member.

pfSense has some limitations in detecting site sessions. We want to control internet usage based on sites and their content, and pfSense doesn't perform this function.

The site itself could be improved; it's not easy to find the things that you want to implement and apply.

It would be good if it had more features like Sophos does.

I've been using pfSense for two years.

It is a stable product.

The installation was easy. I was able to install it in two hours maximum. Only one person is needed for deployment and maintenance.

Currently, we don't pay for a license.

We have fifty users in our organization, and I can recommend pfSense. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at eight.