Netgate pfSense Reviews

pfSense is very good because it allows us to do what we want.

The solution could improve by having centralized management and API support online.

I have been using pfSense for a long time.

I have found pfSense to be stable.

We are providing support for our customers here in Sweden.

The initial setup of pfSense is simple.

The price of pfSense is reasonable. However, there is a free version available.

My advice to those wanting to implement pfSense is to start out with the free version before going with the appliance.

I rate pfSense a ten out of ten.

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.

While it is difficult for me to point to any one specific advantage of the solution in respect of the firewall, I do know that it has many benefits. For one, it is open source. 

The stability could be improved. Whenever there is an update, in spite of developments I may have made, I am required to make certain changes to the coding. 

I have been using pfSense for perhaps two or three years. 

The stability could be better. 

The solution seems to be scalable. 

The solution is easy to set up.

I develop the solution on behalf of my company. 

With my scant knowledge of networking and the firewall I would rate pfSense as an eight out of ten. 

We just did not like its QoS interface.

We tested the solution for a very short period (one week), to compare it to Zeroshell. The idea was to decide which one to use. Our main focus was QoS.

No issues to deploy PFSense; it was straight forward.

PFSense sounded like the de-facto standard for simple SOHO solutions. We just did not like its QoS interface. For us, it seemed very "rigid" compared to Zeroshell. So we went back to Zeroshell because we considered that its QoS interface had much more flexibility and its latest version now even included nDPI too.

Initial setup was very straightforward; the interface is very self-explanatory.

Implementation was done in-house.

We also evaluated Zeroshell.

Firewall and VPN, Internet link balancing, as the proxy was installed on another machine. Used redundant firewall as a cluster.

Improved service performance and availability through redundancy. The company already had specialists in Linux, which facilitated the project.

Ease of monitoring and placement of other packages and functionalities next to the equipment.

Improve analysis of logs and dashboards (control panel) with improved alert functionality.

The features I've found most valuable are--

• Proxy server (to filter traffic, act as intermediary between our server and our client, and analyze and load-balance traffic)
• Load balancer (support multiple servers, load balances two gateways on the same tier)
• Hot spot (with captive portal, forces authentication or click-through for network access)

It's provided us with a fair internet speed for all users. We're also able to control web contents of our users.

The firewall feature could be improved.

We had no issues with deployment.

We had no issues with instability.

We were able to scale just fine.