Netgate pfSense Reviews

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.

We primarily use pfSense as a firewall. It's a DHCP server.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the way it can browse packages on the internet.

The initial setup is very easy.

We've found the stability to be very good overall.

The product can scale if you need it to.

The access control aspect of the product could be improved. There should be more control over everything that the user is doing. It should be able to log and report on everything users are doing. 

The product no longer complies with new rules in Brazil. Therefore, we need to move off the solution.

I have about five years of experience with the solution. It's been a while since we started using it at our organization.

The stability of the product is very good. We haven't had any issues. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

We've found the solution to have good scalability. If a company needs to expand, it can do so. That shouldn't be a problem.

We have about 10,000 people using the solution. There is a network manager and about ten people that work directly with the solution.

We won't be increasing usage, however. The Brazilian government recently changed some laws and this product is no longer in compliance. That is one of the reasons we are looking at Palo Alto. We are likely moving away from this solution.

While the websites and forums are excellent, we don't have any dealings directly with technical support. Therefore, we can't speak to how they are in terms of their responsiveness or knowledgability. 

A long time ago, the company did use a different solution. They switched to pfSense. However, now they are moving away from it as well. 

We're also using Palo Alto, however, right now, it's just in the demo phase. The solution seems to be better at centralization, which is a big selling point. We have three school campuses and we'd like to configure a solution from one central location that would work for all three campuses. With Palo Alto, it looks like we can achieve this.

On top of that, with Palo Alto, there are more user control products. You can log everything that you are doing on the internet with it.

The initial setup of the solution is very easy. It's straightforward. There isn't any complexity. A company shouldn't have any troubles with the setup.

We are using a free version of the solution. We don't need to pay any licensing fees.

We are just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I would recommend the solution to small companies. If you are a small company, you can use pfSense without any issues due to the fact that it's a free solution.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution basically for the firewall, UTM content versioning, bandwidth shaping, routing, and IPS.

The solution is an open-source product, which makes it very cost-effective.

Overall, it covers all of the requirements our organization has at this time. 

The initial setup is easy.

As an open-source solution, there are so many loopholes happening within the product. By design, no one is taking ownership of it, and that is worrisome to me.  

Integration with other products could be improved. It needs log research integrated within it to make it more useful for our purposes.

I've been using the solution for three years.

The stability is questionable. There are glitches. Since no one is really managing the solution, and no one takes ownership of it, there aren't many fixes that happen on it.

We have about 500 people who are taking advantage of the solution within our organization.

The solution is quite scalable. We looked into scaling and found it would be easy enough to achieve if we decided to go ahead and do so in the future.

We've never contacted technical support int he time that we have used the product. I can't speak to any level or service they provide.

We did previously use a different solution before switching to pfSense. We originally switched to this solution due to the fact that it was so cost-effective.

The initial setup of the solution is not complex at all. It's quite straightforward. It's also not our primary firewall. We have another solution for that. This operates as our secondary firewall, and we were able to add it rather easily into our security network.

Deployment is very quick. It only took us an hour or so to set up.

Our provider handled the maintenance for us as needed. We don't handle that in house.

We had a few consultants and a list of vendors that assisted us in the process of procurement and implementation.

The solution is open-source and therefore the solution is very cost-effective.

We're just using this solution; we don't have a relationship with the vendor.

In terms of the version of pfSense we are using, we have that basic boss, 1.0 however, that is behind the firewall. The firewall which we were using is UTM1240B.

While we are satisfied with the netting features and the bandwidth controlling and routing, we find cannot expose our entire network to pfSense as there's no underlying ownership fo the product itself. We prefer a hardened firewall.

Due to the fact that it is an open-source solution, no one at an enterprise-level would ever think of putting pfSense at the gateway level or even at the main level. I would definitely recommend pfSense as the second lane of action, just not on a workload.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

I have used it in town halls with a number of employees ranging between 40 and 60. I have also used it in educational institutions.

The use and results may vary according to the objectives of the institutions. 

In the case of city councils, I have taken the maximum advantage, taking into account that they were small institutions for which the tools provided by pfSense were sufficient according to the requirements of those institutions. 

However, in educational institutions, it was more difficult. Sometimes, the tools have fallen short.

• The part of the firewall and aliases
• The content filter in non-transparent mode and transparent mode with Squid and SquidGuard
• The possibility of adding packages to perform network analysis
• Creation of certificates
• The facility to administer services

The product is good in many of its departments, but this should make HTTPS filtering more efficient since Squid falls short when using man in the middle. It works, but it is not 100% efficient. It requires more attention to provide a better alternative for open source to small government or educational institutions with reduced budgets in terms of technology.

Two particular features stand out to me:

1. The WAN load balancing feature
2. The product offers many additional functions such as router, WLC, and traffic analysis etc.

It has enhanced our organization because of its versatility. It doesn't need expensive hardware to build a robust firewall, therefore, providing a saving on cost. Also, its reliability is quite remarkable which allows IT to focus on other tasks, and how efficiently it manages our WAN traffic.

I think the dashboard/interface could be improved and the ability to manage it from a mobile platform.

I have used this solution for the past two years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

I have never had to use customer service.

I've never used it, but their technical knowledge base, and via online documents and forums, is quite good, but not excellent.

We didn't have a previous solution.

It wasn't straightforward but at the same time not complex. The only issue was identifying relevant static routes to move traffic in and out our network.

I implemented it myself.

The setup cost was practically zero because we had servers in stock. Also, there is no real day-to-day cost attached with it either.

No evaluation took place, we just looked at the initial cost to implement a solution using the hardware we have, and how fast it could be rolled out

Plan, research and test certain features and configurations in a lab environment first.

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.