Netgate pfSense Reviews

Flexibility is the most valuable feature for us.

There's no expensive licensing costs, which helps us save money.

Also, its capacity and functionalities are great for our needs.

Whenever a new version rolls out, there are hidden bugs. That's why we normally run a version behind for a little while before rolling into the current build.

We've had no issues with deployment.

We've had no issues with stability.

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.

At a custom company with several locations.

It has improve my organization through the services that can be added, which makes it highly scalable, from graphic monitoring services to load balancing or captive portal.

It is very difficult to decide one, as they all complement each other, from the DHCP administration to the captive portal. in my case, I would say OpenVPN has helped me to interconnect the company network in a secure and manageable way.

ClamAV AntiVirus can cause some crashes. That service should be improved.

For two years.

I consider it very stable.

It is highly scalable. All services are free.

No, there was no firewall implemented.

The initial setup was simple and fast.

It is an open source firewall.

Yes, OPNsense. It is very similar and better than PfSense.

You should try it.

pfSense allows us to spread the hours of connection and do the filtering on the pfSense site.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity.

The integration could be improved.

I have been using this solution for more than ten years.

This is a very stable solution.

This solution is scalable.

The initial setup was easy and took about 50 minutes. 

This is a no-cost solution.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten because it's a central solution.

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 use pfSense for our firewall protection.

The most valuable features are ease of installation and support.

The domain blocking lists need to be improved. The supported list for domain blocking is community-maintained, and I would like to see something from the manufacturers of pfSense that is a little more global.

I would like to see different graphs available in the reporting.

We have been using pfSense for two months.

pfSense is quite stable. It is one of the pros.

The scalability is very good, where you can do an HA configuration and then bring in another box, if necessary. We have ten users in the organization.

We get very little usage and have no plans to increase it.

The technical support is A+, pretty good.

The initial setup was straightforward.

This solution provides enterprise-level features at a fraction of the cost of an enterprise firewall.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Works with:

• Routers
• Firewalls
• Network address translation (NAT)
• VPN
• OpenVPN
• DHCP Server.

• More control of the access to network resources
• More control of the security policies
• Integration with Active Directory
• Centralized administration

Centralized administration with multiple services, which allows for execution in several important functionalities of information security.

Services on additional features: 

• SNMP Network Management 
• Managing inventory
• Generating IT reports.

The GUI is an all in one solution that includes features such as DHCP, VPN, Squid, Firewall, etc.

I am using this product as a firewall for site-to-site connectivity and also, the Dynamic DNS (DynDNS).

As per my understanding VPN, Captive Portal user-level and MAC-level filtering need to be improved.

I have used this solution for the last one and a half years.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

I am using the community version so there is no need for any support.

Earlier, I was using FortiGate. Due to budget issues we moved to pfSense.

The setup is simple, if you have some Linux and firewall administration expertise.

We evaluated FortiGate, Cisco ASA and Palo Alto.

I would recommend joining the community and ask questions.

You should also read the installation and configuration documentation on the website.