Netgate pfSense Reviews

It's easy to access and configure in general.  As for features, the firewall and security  options were valuable.  These are valuable because I like simple things that are easy to work with, as too much difficulty or too much constraint is not good, and boring.

It provided us with better security.

I used it for two months.

There were no issues during the time I used it.

There were no issues during the time I used it.

There were no issues during the time I used it.

It was straightforward because it's simple and easy to understand to begin using.

We used a vendor team who had a good amount of knowledge,

• Free
• Open source
• Robust
• Strong community support
• Strong author support

Critical network infrastructure has improved.

I've used it for two years.

I've also used Untangle and Sophos firewalls

Straightforward, but it requires some technical expertise and tweaking.

We implemented it entirely in-house.

Make sure the implementer has programming experience.

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.

On-premises

We use pfSense as a firewall and proxy server. We use it to apply different restrictions for different users from some data locations.

I mostly like all of it. Whatever we use is valuable.

There are some bias issues and some intrusions in our network that have to be addressed. So, we're thinking of changing this firewall to something like a professional hardware-enabled firewall.

I have been working with pfSense for many years now.

pfSense is a stable solution.

pfSense is a scalable solution. We have about 200 users in our company.

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

On-premises

This product supports multiple ISP's, so it's good for implementation.

It's made us more productive.

FTP was not allowed, and it didn't indicate during set up whether FTP was to be allowed or disabled.

I've used it for about one year.

The stability is good.

The stability is good.

The technical support is good.

It's free.

All the other features are good, and with it being free, it is very attractive to the users.

• Captive Portal 
• DHCP

pfSense made my life easier for controlling users and their bandwidth. My internet is not misused anymore.

RadiusServer needs some work done.

I've been using it for five years.

I've never had any problems.

Yes I did.

Since it's open source, the only support is available in public forums.

I used different routers, but because I wasn’t happy, I was trying different solutions and I found this one which was the most effective of all those I tried.

It was very straightforward.

I did it on my own.

It was free.

I looked at many hardware solutions.

Go ahead and just implement it.

• MAC Filtered DHCP and DNS
• Captive Portal
• VPN
• Proxy Server
• Proxy Filter

It has provided us with secure internet browsing and a strong monitoring ability.

Proxy filters are not supported for the blocking of HTTPS sites.

I've used it for two to three years.

No issues encountered yet.

No issues encountered yet.

No issues encountered yet.

Customer Service:

I have not gotten any support from the customer service center because I can get all the solutions on their web blogs.

Technical Support:

I think it is perfect.

I was using another product, but it didn't have a bandwidth controller and monitoring tool like this product does. I switched because I can find everything in one window.

Its installation setup & procedure is so simple that a layman could install it.

I installed it by myself and used Google for assistance.

It's positive.

I just downloaded the program from the website free of chard. The best thing is, this product can be installed on any machine.

No other options were evaluated.

It is recommended, as it is a stable product.

Performance, cost effective, scalable, customizable

After switching from Cisco, Juniper, Astaro and Microsoft network response improved and more control of packet (for me, pfpacket technology is better than packet filter.)

Graphic report implementation tool (now possible with extra software)

5+ years.

No, perfect scalability from 20 to 500 users

Cisco, Microsoft and when TMG progressively died it was necessary to switch to unix technology, many corporations require low budget and high performance.

The initial approach is very complex because of the multiple functions, but after a short learning curve it is able to handle the standard functions.

In my case, I buy network appliance from Lanner Inc. ltd (watchguard supplier) and deploy the image depending on the desired size and functionality required by the customer.

Identify the most suitable hardware for the required size.

Yes, Astaro and PaloAlto plus Juniper, but the renewal planes (AV, UTM, etc.) are very expensive.