Netgate pfSense Reviews

We primarily use the solution as a replacement for commercial firewalls. We use it as an Internet Gateway Firewall product and use the VPN features.

pfSense helped solve the limitations of proprietary software. I find it frustrating when the hardware capabilities of a particular piece of equipment are doled out piecemeal for a fee. For example, when certain features are locked until you pay for them. The proprietary nature and the extra computing power that's used to basically enforce the copyright on some of the competitive products I resent. I like that this has a community option. I'm an open-source advocate. I started using Linux in 1999, and I prefer that developer model.

There are many capabilities within pfSense, that I've never used, and that's true of a lot of products. It's very flexible, and they have plug-ins.  You can add features to pfSense. It is moderately difficult. That said, the web interface is great.

I like that I can use it with OpenVPN. It's not licensed and is not run by some corporation that watches you.

It has an advanced file system so that you can configure it with multiple drives and have redundancy within the router itself. I've never used it as a file server. I've never used it as a data store. It's really more about security and not reliability.

It's keeping the bad guys out and allowing connectivity when you need it.

The configuration could be a little more intuitive. It's a little trickier to set up - things like the OpenVPN - than it should be. However, once you get this configured, it seems solid as a rock, and it just works. 

The solution needs better error messages in the VPN. It's kind of a bear to configure. That could be streamlined or smoothed out. That said, I do not do this 40 hours a week like some people. I wear a lot of different hats. Still, when it comes to configuring, it always seems to be a little more involved. 

I've been using the solution for three or four years. 

The solution has been very solid.The BSD file system is a little more fragile than a Linux file system. I've had situations where a power failure causes a hard drive not to get corrupted but to need to run maintenance on it when it reboots. However, that's not a pfSense issue. Overall, it's been great.

I'm not a power user. For me, the capabilities are fine. It runs pretty fast even on modest hardware. 

Technical support was good. It was way better than the twenty-four hours that the contract said. They usually get back to me in a matter of a few minutes. 

They are very good at answering and solving specific problems. If something doesn't work, you can give them access. They can figure it out and make it work. 

I was less satisfied when I tried to ask a question like, "Is this the best way to have this configured?" It's a slippery slope of going beyond the typical tech support and actually getting consulting on it. I understand that maybe that's not their problem. However, it did seem like there's this hard wall where they will answer specific questions, but they are not going to give you general consulting advice about how to use the product. That is a little frustrating. 

Positive

I've used SonicWall and I've used various commercial firewalls, for example, Cisco. However, I haven't evaluated other things in the same category based on open source. There are a lot of them; I haven't looked at anything else, to be honest.

It's easy to get it going as a firewall. It's moderately difficult to get the VPN features running. I was able to deploy it within a couple of days. 

Maintenance is needed for upgrades or renewal of certificates.

I managed the setup myself with the help of the pfSense support staff. 

I use the community version, although there is a paid version as well. I've also downloaded it, registered myself, and paid for it to get support. I'm not sure of the exact features that differ between free and paid. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The only shortcomings are somewhat obscure configuration issues. However, the scope of what they're trying to do is very good. While there could be more polish on some configurations, it's very capable and very flexible. 

If I had to do it over again, I would probably have actually gotten the hardware from NetGate. You're paying for the support, and bundling the hardware and support together might be better. I sense that you'd kick yourself up a notch in terms of the priority that they give you. Not that there's ever been a problem. Getting the hardware directly from pfSense might cut out the middleman and reduce the possibility of issues when something goes south. Other than that, I'm a pretty fairly satisfied customer.

We use pfSense as the main firewalls coming into most of the companies we support. I work for an MSP. We've used different things. Our higher-end customers even run pfSense high availability clusters, and those work like a champ.

It has made deploying firewalls a faster process due to ease of configuration.

One of the features we use the most is the OpenVPN and IPsec VPN tunneling built within it. We have places that are headquarters and multiple locations where we create tunnels. We support police departments and stuff like that. Part of our use case is one of our police departments that does their own dispatching, so they have software that they run in-house. So we set their points out where the points themselves dial back in through OpenVPN using client certificates to create that always-on tunnel. Prior to us taking that over, they were using FortiGates, and the FortiGate FortiVPN was constantly dropping, and they were constantly having to re-authenticate. They would have to put 2FA back in. Since we've put in pfSense, we have the cradlepoints in cars establish the VPN connection, and we hardly ever hear from them since there seem to be no issues.

pfSense's flexibility is great. If you don't have the money to buy the NetGate hardware, anything works with it. You can toss it on any low-end piece of hardware or virtualize it if you choose to virtualize it. It is super flexible.

It's easy to add features to pfSense or configure them, especially if you're familiar with pfSense. They have a complete repository of apps that you can choose from and different types of monitoring packages you can put on it. They're all very, very straightforward and very easy to set up. I even run a pfSense for my home firewall. I've got AT&T fiber coming into my house. I bridge the public IP through, patch the modem into my pfSense, and have no issues whatsoever. I even run multiple VLANs off of it.  I replaced a FortiGate with this setup.

The benefits are witnessed immediately after you deploy it. Immediately after you deploy it you're no longer having to read articles to figure out what flaw has been found in this version of FortOS or what flaw has been found in this version of SonicWall that's being run. You just you don't seem to have that in the pfSense platform.

pfSense provides with a customizable dashboard landing page.  You can add widgets to show you any piece of information you want to see. I can add in a widget where, from the dashboard, it'll show me, what OpenVPN clients I have connected. It'll show me traffic graphs from LAN, optional ports, uptime, what version of BSD I'm on, what version of pfSense I'm on, whether there's an update available for PFSense, IP information, et cetera. It gives me all this within the main loading dashboard screen.

To manage multiple devices, you would have to subscribe to a third-party service to have the ability to do that.

This is truly set it and forget it. We didn't quite run into that as much with FortiGate. Even with the third-party add-ons, we don't seem to run into issues with the pfSense product where we have to be so hands-on.

There are two versions of pfSense, the community edition, which is free, and the paid version, Plus. We run both. We're getting more away from the community edition since we're starting to just purchase NetGate appliances. We're buying it strictly through NetGate. At this point, we're even starting to add on the tech support, which is top-notch.

pfSense can help to minimize downtime. You can set them up in a high-availability cluster, and that pretty much minimizes all downtime. Your secondary appliance picks up if your primary appliance goes down. It makes it really easy to apply updates or reboot the one firewall. It switches over so seamlessly. Your users never know the difference. When the primary firewall comes back up, it'll take over the primary function again, and then you can reboot your secondary firewall.

The visibility in pfSense enables us to make data-driven decisions. You can use traffic graphs and the historical data of those traffic graphs, especially if you're monitoring your WAN connection, to know whether you're oversaturating your line and whether you need to update your bandwidth coming into your building or not. That way, if you're seeing slowdowns on the internet, you can go back to your traffic graphs and figure out if you are seeing the slowdown from your provider or just oversaturating the line. If that's the case, I just need to call and order some more bandwidth.

As far as optimizing the performance goes, I like the fact that you can take interfaces within pfSense and put bandwidth limits on them. If I have a guest network, I can put a throttle limit on it to make sure that somebody doesn't hook to my guest and eat up so much bandwidth that my primary network can't function.

They're very affordable for what they offer. However, they should become more MSP-centric. They could design a centralized dashboard that I, as an MSP provider, can create sites and load my pfSense in there. That way, I can schedule updates to run after hours and things along those lines. They need to design for MSPs that are using their products and make centralized management easier.

I've been using pfSense for at least a decade. 

pfSense doesn't ever crash. If I had any gripe about these things, it's the fact that sometimes the update process will break the appliance. I'm not sure what causes it. I've had a few appliances where they've been running fine, and I go to apply an update, and then they just don't boot back normally. At that point, I reach out to support. They give me the reload file that I need. I reload the appliance. I dump the config back on it, and then it's good to go.

As long as you're buying an appliance that will support the bandwidth that you need to push through it, scalability is fine.We've got some of them running 10 to 12 VLANs. We've got one particular one that has no less than five different OpenVPN setups depending upon the department you're in.

Their paid support is top-notch.

With the community edition, and this probably is one of my gripes to pfSense, and this is more on the NetGate side, is that they don't make their images readily available to you. So you have to open a support ticket. You have to give them the hardware ID. You have to give them the serial number of the appliance, and then they will send you the file that you need to reload the operating system. Even so, we're talking about less than an hour of waiting time, and somebody will respond to the ticket and give you a link where you can download the software to reload it.

Positive

We've used SonicWall. We've used FortiGate. We always seem to go back to the Netgate and the PS pfSense just due to the fact being open source, they seem to have fewer security flaws in them than running something that is a closed proprietary system. With FortiGate, you constantly need to update, since they're constantly finding flaws in the FortiOS, and we just don't seem to have that from pfSense and the NetGate supply of products.

There was more hands-on work with FortiGate. If you're doing any type of web filtering, they would come out with an update where a website that did work would start getting miscategorized. And then all of a sudden, it would stop working. And you would have to go in and make a white list and an exception for it.

We buy the appliances and then install the appliances on our customer sites.

The initial deployment is easy. How long it takes depends on how simple or how complicated it is. As far as just a simple firewall goes, I can have one of them up and running in 15 to 20 minutes.

Even if you are not too knowledgeable, it would be very easy. When you first boot into it and go to the web interface, it has a wizard that walks you through setting the IP address on your LAN and configuring whether you're using DHCP or static on the LAN. That wizard that walks you right through what to do right out of the box.

Just one person is generally needed for deployment. 

After the deployment, it's pretty much set it and forget it. I will go in and I will check quarterly if an update needs to be applied, however, they don't come up with updates that often. Maybe once a quarter, once every six months, an update has to be applied to the appliance. Other than that, I am only logging into these appliances if I need to make rule changes or if I need to bring up an additional VLAN in the network.

The licensing model is good. It's probably a little expensive for the hardware that you get. However, a part of that price is the support. And their support is top-notch. Even if you're only using the community support, and you're not paying for the extra support, they probably pad the hardware prices a little bit to help offset their support people. 

I love the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of pfSense. That's one of our selling points to our customers. You can buy this, buy once, or, you can look at going to Meraki or FortiGate or something like that, but, be paying licensing fees every single year to keep that product up and running.

I'm an MSP.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

If you're going with the NetGate appliance, I'd let new users know that they are already optimized for pfSense. If it's something that you're looking to virtualize or if you're looking to use a community edition on your own hardware, my recommendation would be just to make sure that you use Intel network cards. I have never had a problem out of an Intel NIC for getting the OpenBSD underlying platform to recognize those network cards and load the proper drivers for them. That way, they show up within the pfSense software.

The tool is partly for home-based usage and partly for business usage. I am in the IT industry, taking care of the security and technology parts. I also run a private business in my spare time when I am not working. I use Netgate pfSense as my firewall to separate those two entities: my home and business. I also participate in providing server space for projects involving Azure Flex and Azure Core, which is kind of like an AWS situation but in a more centralized manner. I use Netgate pfSense to ensure that everything is separate. I use Suricata to weed out any malicious type of activity and to keep an eye on just to ensure that all the other functions, both personal and business-related, remains unaffected, intact, and devoid of any type of attacks or the other type of malicious kind of activity.

The product has helped improve my organization's environment and personal environment since before the use of Netgate pfSense, and I really didn't even have a hardened firewall. With the implementation of Netgate pfSense, I am able to monitor my various network streams, so I have my servers, VLAN, my home VLAN, EMC, my WAN, and the specific VLAN for IoT devices. I even segregate some of my outgoing intranets as well, and I see how Netgate pfSense has allowed me to have a full and high-end visibility of a lot of the traffic that comes and goes, which for me is important because part of the job that I do is crypto related. When dealing with crypto-related business, you need to be careful as far as what you allow in and out of your network.

I wouldn't say the simplicity of the tool is its best feature. In a way, there is a simplicity to it, but I like the expandability of the packages that could be used. I like the data and the information that I can collect while observing network traffic. The whole layout of the application is pretty decent. The tool is not super expensive. It is quite an affordable tool. There used to be the free Netgate pfSense Plus that was provided earlier at one point, and I understand now, of course, that it is based on the yearly licensing model, and I think that took a lot of people aback. There is not a lot of money to be paid for the tool, and you get more than what you paid for, especially if I think about its use and consider what it does.

If I assess the flexibility of Netgate pfSense, I would say that I can not just run a firewall, but I could use HAProxy and run a bunch of other kinds of server-based applications that normally would occupy a different server, so it amalgamates a few services into one package, which is nice single point of contact. I like not having to go to two or three servers to run the services needed, especially the ease of the firewall, as far as the creation of rules and the security aspect are concerned. The updates that come in are pretty decent, and though not too often, they are often enough to keep things secure. I like the tool's flexibility in the sense that you do not have to buy an appliance. You can put it on your own hardware, and it can be very simplistic hardware with simple configurations. There are a lot of abilities to be used in the product, and benefits can be gained from the tool without having to incur a huge upfront cost in purchasing hardware. If you have a computer lying around, you can easily install it, and you can go with it. With the tool's free version, you can use the tool for free. It is quite a friendly tool in the sense that it provides access not only to regular people but also to high-end corporates and business individuals.

Getting extra features or added packages in Netgate pfSense is very easy since the GUI and the menus basically take care of everything. When you go to do the installation, you see the log messages come up, and it's very clear when it is complete. It is a pretty simplistic process.

As per my assessment regarding Netgate pfSense's role in helping prevent data loss, I would say that as far as data loss is concerned, I think part of it is the firewall preventing access to my network shares aside from the typical kind of blocking ports and not allowing traffic. I think very much the segregation of the VLANs is possible, and my server VLAN will have all kinds of data, information, databases, and file repositories, and all of that is completely segregated from my DMZ. Any kind of the shared services that I offer or kind of crypto-based services that I do, the connections, both incoming and outgoing, can't gain access to my server VLAN at all, and such segregation really protects my data aside from some of the built-in, immutable type of services that the kind of network repositories that I have that do outside of Netgate pfSense. The key thing actually is just keeping things separate and being able to get alerts if something funky is happening.

Netgate pfSense gives a single pane of glass management view since the dashboard is always the first thing that I look at, and I have got to configure it in a way where I see my traffic graphs. I have the gateways and interfaces that I look at, along with the interface statistics, services, and a lot of other functions that I can quickly just glance at, including my Suricata alerts, the filtering, and other alerts. I can look at the UPS and the run time for the battery. I could take a quick glance and kinda see all the information I need without getting too deep, making the tool's dashboard a pretty cool feature. It really saves a lot of time.

I use Netgate pfSense Plus. I generally have experienced zero downtime with the tool. If there is some downtime, it is because of my own doings. As far as the benefits of Netgate pfSense are taken into consideration, I can see it has a lot of the extras that you get, and it worked. At a certain point in time, Netgate pfSense Plus was free to upgrade. I don't remember how much Netgate pfSense Plus and pfSense CE software differ from each other, but I know they differ quite a bit. The one thing I will say is the major difference that I have used is the boot environment. If I am doing an upgrade, I will basically take a snapshot of my current boot environment. Even though it does it automatically when you do an upgrade, I just take another backup. If I do something that is a very specific change that makes me a little nervous, I take a snapshot, and then I always have something that I could boot back into if things go horribly wrong, which is a big plus and one way of eliminating downtime since you can go back to a previous instance that is fully functioning.

Speaking of whether the tool provides visibility that enables our company to make data-driven decisions, I can check my graph, and through monitoring, I will be able to check my WAN and see the quality of the WAN to the point I was utilizing a router or modem provided by my service provider I was able to through the graph when there was a drop in the traffic and the quality of the connectivity, and that led me to basically scrap the modem and actually configure my own setup to get the internet into my home.

In terms of the total cost of ownership of Netgate pfSense, I think that for somebody like me who uses it in a cozy home corporate business environment, it is quite an affordable option. The tool is not expensive, and when it comes to the cost of ownership, if you have something lying around, like an old server that I repaired for Netgate pfSense. The benefit is that I am able to put it on an older server, so there are no hardware costs. The tool is not something that would go into a landfill. I think that the tool has been quite affordable and has paid itself over quite a few times. You could go cheap and use an ASUS router at home, which a lot of people do, but it may not have the stability, and it doesn't have the kind of horsepower on your engine speed or expandability of a polished product like Netgate pfSense.

The maintenance that is needed in the tool is just to make sure that the tool is up to date. It's not necessary to do the maintenance, and it's not just about updating Netgate pfSense but also updating the packages. It is great that you have a good product that can keep your environment safe. If you don't patch or have unknown vulnerabilities that surface, then you will end up wasting your money. I do have a patch process, so I check at least once a week for new installs or packages or if there is a version released and apply them shortly after. The total time to install the tool is probably a couple of hours in a month.

I

There are a lot of features I want to see simplified in the product. I want to see the licensing model part to be improved in the product. Those who need to do certain functions from their house would purchase Netgate pfSense Plus while configuring their machine, but if they have another network added to it, then it would basically change the ID of the device, and they have to go and request to get relicensed. Netgate pfSense will help you with the relicensing part for one time, but if you need to do it a second time, then you will have to pay for a new license, and that, to me, is not very fair. I think if you have paid for a year of service, it shouldn't matter how many times you need to request to rekey the license as long as it is not every other day. Two to three requests in a year shouldn't be an issue, and if I add another network card, why should I pay for a new license when there is not much of a difference.

The only thing that I would like to get some better utilization of is the ability to do free switching. If I need to go between different VLANs, I have VLAN 19.1 and VLAN 19.2, and I strictly use Netgate pfSense, but it doesn't route very efficiently and works quite slowly. I understand that it is not the router, but a lot of times, Netgate pfSense advertises it as a tool that is able to route traffic. I had to go in and purchase a separate router to manage my internal VLANs because Netgate pfSense was just choosing between the VLANs I had.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for a year and a half. I am just a customer of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I haven't had an instance where the tool has gone down, and if it has, then that wasn't my fault. The stability is there in the tool. I have had the tool p and running a few times, and the only time I have had to reboot it is when there was a new release.

The scalability is really dependent on your hardware. If I want to scale it up, I can throw in network adapters, more memory, more CPU, and scale it up. It is quite a scalable tool, and it is really just dependent on what you throw at it. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support is not bad, and they are pretty quick to respond. It is quite average as far as the technical part goes. There has been no bad experience with the support team. I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I tried using OPNsense but I didn't like the whole approach, the menu system and the way it was configured. Netgate pfSense made more sense to me in a logical manner.

The product's initial setup phase is fairly straightforward. If you install an operating system, then you can install Netgate pfSense, so there is nothing to it.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The basic installation of the tool takes less than an hour. The configuration part is something that you figure out as you go ahead with the tool, which obviously takes a bit longer. The basic installation is quite quick and can be done in less than an hour.

For me, considering how much I put into the tool, right now, I would say that the ROI is around 25 percent.

When it comes to Netgate pfSense, I use the basic TAC Lite license, which comes for about 100 USD. I don't think Netgate pfSense is expensive at all. You could look at other services that offer similar types of configurations, and you can see it may cost in the thousands range. Even though I want something for free, I think it is quite a reasonable tool. The only qualm I have with the tool is that it is a little stingy on how many times they have to rekey a license.

I would recommend the tool to others since for me, it is simple, the low cost of ownership, expandability, just the way it looks, I like the numbers, and when the data is there, you throttle how much information you want to see or collect. For somebody who likes to tinker or likes to see the numbers or wants to harden their network or has a corporate business and wants to ensure things are operating smoothly, the tool is worth it.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I'm an independent IT consultant specializing in pfSense router deployments. I use pfSense not only in my home and my parents' homes but also at ten of my clients' locations.

The pfSense router can be deployed on-premises, in the cloud, or on a hybrid platform, but I only deploy it on-premise.

pfSense's flexibility overall is excellent. I can't think of a feature that it doesn't have.

Once I got the hang of it, pfSense became easy to use to add new features. However, there are occasional complexities, like configuring a RADIUS server, which initially seemed overly complicated. Thankfully, the documentation helped me navigate the process successfully.

I immediately saw the benefits of pfSense based on the cost savings alone. The routers are low-cost, to begin with, and there are no annual licensing fees like those required by Cisco routers and other brands. I have replaced many Cisco routers with pfSense because of the ridiculous licensing fees.

pfSense, as long as it is properly configured, is excellent at helping us prevent data loss.

Netgate hardware devices come pre-installed with pfSense Plus, which means all of our installations benefit from pfSense Plus because they run on Netgate hardware.

pfSense provides visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions. The package manager lets us add a lot more visibility. I use the softflowd add-on package, and there are a few other add-ons if we need more visibility.

The visibility provided by pfSense helps optimize performance. The data flows across the different subnets, which is helpful if there is a performance issue.

pfSense stands out for its full features and adherence to industry standards. Unlike competitors introducing proprietary variations like UniFi or Omada, pfSense prioritizes compliance. This is crucial in manufacturing environments where diverse systems need to integrate seamlessly. In such multi-brand settings, standard compliance becomes a critical factor for successful system interaction.

pfSense doesn't offer a central management system for multiple sites, which wouldn't be a big deal for most of my customers, who typically manage just one site. However, for larger companies with many sites, logging into each pfSense router individually to manage them could become cumbersome.

Previously, we were able to download an offline installer for our firmware. For example, if our router crashes, we must reinstall the OS. We would have it on a USB stick that is available to reinstall. Now, with the current version of pfSense, they are no longer providing an offline installer. We have to be connected to the internet to download the OS in real time, which, in some cases, is not possible. Some routers need to be air-gapped for compliance controls. They are not supposed to have access to the internet. In other cases, we can't disconnect the company's internet to connect the replacement router because that would take down the company. So we don't have a way to install the OS. I went back and forth with Netgate's support, trying to get that through their heads, and eventually, a manager gave me the offline installer but told me this would be the last one and not to expect this ever again. They have provided offline installers for 15 years, so I don't understand why they would remove them now. They are not considering all of the use cases. If we have a large company and the router goes down, we could be losing thousands of dollars an hour, and we don't want to sit there trying to troubleshoot an internet connection when we could use a USB stick to reinstall it in two seconds and restore the config. This is an essential need for some organizations and an area where Netgate pfSense can improve.

I've been a Netgate pfSense user for nearly 15 years, practically since its launch.

Netgate pfSense has been excellent in terms of stability. I have never had an issue with any of the business-grade routers. Their lowest-end model runs on MMC storage instead of regular hard drive storage, and I have had some of those crash.

Netgate pfSense has different tiers, so the higher we scale, the more expensive it gets, but as long as we match it appropriately, it works great.

I have never paid for Netgate support, but when we purchase a new router, they allow us to send a config of the old router and provide one-time support for free. So, I have interacted with them a few times under these terms. The results have been mixed. Sometimes, I can tell I am speaking to a competent person, and others don't understand what I'm saying. In the past 15 years, I have been working with pfSense routers. I have contacted the support team 15 times, and the results have been 50/50.

Neutral

I have used Cisco routers, which were a real hassle to manage. I have also used Linksys and Apple AirPort routers.

The initial deployment for a new user is moderate. It all depends on their experience level. The documentation on their website is suitable for beginners. For a basic deployment, there are many articles from other people and YouTube videos on how to deploy.

Compared to other business routers, pfSense's pricing is reasonable. It also offers a free community version that can't be beaten.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionality, pfSense's total cost of ownership is low compared to other routers like SonicWall, which licenses the VPN feature. 

When I compare pfSense to other routers like TP-Link and Omada, I see that it has all the standard network features, whereas the others are missing a few. The challenge with pfSense is learning to use it because of all the features it includes. I have never felt like I needed to change brands because pfSense was missing a required feature.

I would rate Netgate pfSense eight out of ten. It is a great product.

I recommend new users do a test setup on their home network first to understand how it works before moving it into their business.

I use the solution in two of my homes. I have a home in the UK and one more in the US. I have two firewall tools running with a VPN link between them, and it allows me to easily administer and protect both networks, one in the UK and the other in the US.

I can discuss the product's most valuable features if you have a playbook for some of the things you want to hear about or expect me to touch upon.

The tool's most valuable features revolve around its ease of use. It is a resilient product with a very easy-to-use interface. The learning curve for the product is very simple. I also like the core packages included in the tool, making my firewall a one-stop shop for stuff like DNS and VPN usage. The tool has a lot of packages available. I like the product's in-built packages. I use WireGuard VPN, and it is very good. I use IPSec, the built-in DNS product in the tool. I can also link the tool with my UPS if the UPS has an outage in the northeast region where people experience electricity cuts. The software I use on Netgate pfSense acts as a kind of choke point and sends messages throughout my network to start shutting down during electricity cuts. My firewall is a ground zero area for me on my edge. All the packages in the tool allow me to protect my network. It serves as a Layer 4 product since Netgate pfSense doesn't do anything like other products offering Layer 7. As a Layer 4 product, Netgate pfSense is very strong since I can easily create very advanced firewall rules, which I wouldn't be able to create as easily with other solutions, especially if they don't come with more than 10,000 or 20,000 USD as the price tag. Palo Alto, Check Point, or FortiGate are expensive firewall products compared to Netgate pfSense. I don't think Netgate pfSense really competes with Palo Alto, Check Point, or FortiGate, but the latter set of tools may make it feel like Netgate is trying to compete with them. I work for a major security firewall vendor, and I don't think Netgate pfSense competes with it. Netgate pfSense provides SMEs with a significant amount of value for not a lot of cash.

It is very easy to add features to Netgate pfSense. Now remember that Netgate pfSense does not attract an average IT person. The tool attracts people with two profiles, including CCNA-certified or very sophisticated firewall administrators, hoping they can help use some of the pretty advanced features in the product. The second profile of the tool's users would consist of those who are getting started or want a better firewall than what their carriers or the provider provides them with so that they can learn about firewall devices. They want to learn about networking by using Netgate pfSense. For both profiles, the tool offers a very linear learning curve. The documentation in Netgate pfSense is very strong.

The benefits related to the product can be experienced immediately after the product is deployed. I wanted to replace EdgeRouters from Ubiquiti for my use cases, which have now gone into a deprecated mode. I wanted a tool that could offer me the functionality of EdgeRouter, and I was happy to pay more for a product that could provide such features. Compared to EdgeRouter, I had to spend 700 to 800 USD on both the final units from Netgate pfSense for both of my homes. I chose Netgate pfSense since I wanted a tool with a set of more updated functionalities and a solution that can be considered an easy replacement product for EdgeRouter. I saw immediate value in Netgate pfSense from day one.

A single pane of glass is a vast term. If I were to define a single pane of glass, I would say that it is something from which you can see everything from everywhere in a single dashboard. The single-pane-of-glass feature within the tool's user interface is one of the core aspects of the product. In my opinion, the tool has a very strong dashboard.

Netgate pfSense can minimize downtime easily since it is easy to put it in a high-availability configuration.

Considering that the tool offers a Layer 4 firewall's functionalities, I can say that Netgate pfSense provides visibility that enables me to make data-driven decisions. For example, the firewall fits into two markets. The north-to-south market is where Netgate fits in with Palo Alto, Check Point, Sophos, and Cisco. There is also the east-to-west market where I work since it is where my employer is currently. When you talk about the visibility of data, you are looking for either north to south or east to west. In terms of the visibility from east to west, which is based on application to application or data center within a data center, Netgate pfSense will not be helpful at all. From north to south, I get visibility over what is coming into my network. For example, I can easily capture dump traffic using the in-built features in the tool and run an SNIP on the traffic. I can see what's coming in and inspect those packets, and I can do that all within the user interface, which is a new feature in the tool that is very strong. I like the tool's new feature. The tool has very easy-to-consume logs, and it is very easy for me to export them into a SIEM server if I want to do some kind of mass data warehousing and sorting.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities, if I assess the total cost of ownership of Netgate pfSense, I would say it is very large.

I think the tool requires more strategic improvements than we need it to be in the present. With Netgate, considering that I work in a firewall market, I know that its problem is not just in its features. It needs improvements in terms of the strategic vision, where the product should go, and what market it should be for in the future. Netgate needs to figure out if they want to strive for the SMB business and the home market or if they want to attempt to reach out at an enterprise level. 

I don't think Netgate knows where they want to go with or without a plan. I think Netgate is still trying to devise a plan by itself as to which market it wants to fall into, which can make it more profitable for the tool. There is nothing that Netgate pfSense could do to make me feel any better about the product. I love the product, and I will use it until I die. It is a really good product. Improvements are needed in the area of the company's strategic vision and based on where the solution needs to go in the future. I spoke about north to south and east to west since the world is moving towards the concept of zero trust. If you are a CISO or a CIO and you are trying to achieve a zero-trust architecture, you need to check if Netgate is on your list of companies that would help you achieve it. If I consider the CIOs I speak to, Netgate doesn't even get mentioned in our talks.

I do not require improvements in the product. It is feature-complete. As a firewall, Netgate pfSense can be described as a very feature-complete product for the market space in which it currently operates.

Strategy and vision of the product are the areas with shortcomings where improvements can be made so that Netgate pfSense can figure out where the product should go in the future. It will provide Netgate with choices like whether it wants to go towards a zero trust architecture if it wants to go towards the east-to-west direction if it wants to go towards big enterprise or go into Layer 7 traffic. My answer regarding the need for improvement in the product is going to be more of a strategic-based one rather than from a technical point of view because the product is excellent.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for five years. I am an end user of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The solution's scalability is tricky, and it all depends on the context. It is infinitely scalable for me, and my company has 150 devices in my network, which may be nothing. Suppose a company like J.P. Morgan says they want to use Netgate Netgate as their north-to-south firewall. In that case, you may face big scalability problems because, at such a level, tools like Check Point or Cisco have custom silicon chip designs to support their workloads. For SMBs, the scalability part is not an issue. I don't think Netgate pfSense can offer much scalability for big enterprises.

I have contacted the solution's technical support team. The quality of the answers provided by the technical support team is good, and the responsiveness is exceptional. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

I have used many solutions that can be considered alternatives to Netgate pfSense. I can compare Netgate pfSense with FortiGate since Netgate is priced similarly but falls at a lower end when compared to Fortinet FortiGate. FortiGate is a better product for an enterprise. For home usage and small and medium-sized enterprises, Netgate pfSense can be a stronger choice than FortiGate. For home use, Netgate pfSense is very much preferable.

Even for an unskilled person, the tool's deployment phase would be easy to manage. It is a very easy product to consume because it has a lot of WYSIWYG and built-in wizards, along with a very easy graphical user interface.

Deploying one instance of Netgate pfSense can take around five minutes, and only one person does it. Regarding the other tasks, our company has firewall products that handle more than 100 or 1,000 workloads, and two to three people manage them.

A limited amount of maintenance is required from the end of the tool's users. It is just to adjust the firewall rules as and when necessary to meet the business needs, like in patching, where Netgate pfSense does a very good job while also being very responsible and quick to respond to zero day and CVE alerts. The tool is superb and very impressive, but it can be described as a very low-overhead product because, by nature, firewalls under the north-to-south are for static workloads, which is where Netgate's market is currently. Those workloads are not changing for now. You put Negate pfSense into your system and forget about it, which can be considered as a whole other problem in firewall products, but I won't go too deep into it because that is why there are 20 years of rules in firewalls and no one maintains it because you just set it up and forget it.

I bought Netgate pfSense Plus since I have to use the firewall in both my houses, so I have four solutions. I have made certain payments using a subscription-based model to use Netgate pfSense Plus.

If I were a part of Netgate leadership or running the company, I would clear out a few areas on the strategy side of the business. I work for a major enterprise where an SME or the tool is needed. Netgate's strategy regarding Netgate pfSense Plus for home users or labs was very misleading in nature and handled very badly. I have opted for the tool's subscription-based pricing model. a subscription, and I am very happy to pay the money money, which comes to around 130 USD for two years, which is nothing for me. Netgate handles the tool's subscription-based pricing model very badly.

I think Netgate pfSense's pricing or licensing models are fair enough. I think the way Netgate pfSense handled its previous pricing model with regards to Netgate pfSense Plus was an area that was misleading for users. Overall, what I pay for the product is very reasonable.

There are no features in Netgate pfSense that help prevent data loss. One can use a DLP tool to manage data loss.

The visibility in Netgate pfSense does not help me optimize performance, and I think it is because I am a pretty advanced user on the command line. I wouldn't rely on the visualization part for any advanced performance.

I have never used Netgate pfSense on Amazon EC2 virtual machines.

My suggestion to those who plan to use the product would be that they need to read the solution's documentation, utilize the community forums and shouldn't be afraid to fail. It is easy to recover from failure with Netgate pfSense since it has configuration change logs along with very easy rollback abilities. In the newest version, if you make a change and you reboot, it just snapshots you back to the new change, which is excellent.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

It's the main firewall for my household. It's also what I'm using to gain access to my employer's website and VPN. It acts as a gateway to my employers. My wife uses the device as a VPN to do her job as well.

I wanted something that is robust and makes it easy to diagnose if anything goes wrong. I'm also used to the system. I've used it since 2006 or 2007. So it was something that was really familiar with. I used to use the free solution. Last year, I decided to jump into the actual hardware devices that these guys sell. I didn't have time anymore to deal with aftermarket hardware. It saves me some time to have their devices.

The main benefit is peace of mind and no downtime or minimal downtime as compared to other solutions that I've used before.

Its ability to put some plug-ins into the system is helpful. There are a couple of packages that I'm using. Since I'm using it mainly as a firewall and sometimes as a VPN endpoint, it's really great.

The flexibility is good. The fact that you can add packages makes the device quite flexible. Also, it's quite overpowered for my needs right now, so that's a good thing. 

Price-wise, the quality to price is pretty much up there, especially when you consider that you don't have to tinker with anything. With hardware, you don't know where you know, how long it's going to last or anything like that. However, with pfSense, you have guaranteed support with NetGate, and this is great.

It's quite easy to configure. It's very intuitive. Maybe that's because I know the interface. There's also tons of of information available online. They have a very good user manual for the software as well. It's very detailed, and it's it's easy to work with. 

There's a forum where you can ask questions, and people are very friendly. Within a couple of hours, sometimes days, somebody has had the issue that you're having before. So, forum responses are quite quick.

It's really easy to work with. There's peace of mind and no downtime.

In terms of preventing data loss, any solution is only as good as its weakest point. And since this is at the very edge of my network, of the outside network, I feel I'm pretty prepared and protected from data breaches. That said, at the end of the day, I'm not opening myself up to many things in the outside world. It's blocking pretty well, and I don't feel threatened. If there's data loss, it's going to be from my end users, not from the device itself.

It provides us with a single pane of glass management for my household. There's only one device that I use.

The main advantage to me right now is that I'm using their reboot environment. It's really easy for me to update, and if some things don't go well, I can go to the previous version and be back up in no time. 

pfSense is just plug-and-play. Performance-wise, once you install the system, it works even when there's been a couple of software updates. It's probably overpowered for what I need. Performance is very good.

If I had to change internal providers, I might have some difficult times. For example, going from cable to ADSL. Right now, it suits my needs, and as long as they keep it updated, I'm pretty good with that.

I've used the solution since December 2023.

The stability is great.

I haven't had to scale the solution.

I haven't had to contact technical support. 

I have used other solutions, such as Untangle, D-Link, and Linksys. There were always a lot of limitations if you didn't adopt the commercial licenses, and those would be expensive. pfSense is reliable, especially with the NetGate hardware. It's also predictable. There's never a big software change. pfSense has been very stable since it's based on FreeBSD. However, it is on a lesser-known OS.

I use a physical device. For implementation, you have to use a console interface through a serial port and then a TTY from your own computer. For some people, maybe it's a bit more difficult. For me, it was really straightforward. It's as easy as setting up a switch. 

I loaded it up the first time and the only thing I had to do was modify my previous config, change the interface names, and just throw it back in there. It takes less than an hour.

There's only maintenance if there's an update. It might be down for a few minutes during that time. It takes maybe five to 10 minutes. Even if something goes wrong, it's pretty easy. You just reimage it and reload the safe configuration. It's much easier than other solutions, like Untangle. 

I handled the implementation myself. I did not need the help of third parties. 

The pricing is reasonable. Before I got the 6000, I was on my own devices. They developed a pricing schedule last year. At first, I was worried, however, it's maybe $130 a year and it's very reasonable compared to other solutions. With the 6000, the price is included within the device itself. 

Compared to other solutions, the total cost of ownership is very good. It's not that it is so much cheaper, it's that it fulfils the needs of more people. With the level of support provided, the price is very reasonable. 

I'd advise new users to take the time to read about the device and the software beforehand. Otherwise, you're going to waste a lot of time trying things that you think are going to work. Since it's not necessarily the same thing as, let's say, Untangle, you have to familiarize yourself with the interface and with the system before actually diving in deep.

I would rate the product ten out of ten.

We use the solution as the main firewall and a proxy for load balancing our web servers.

The best feature of the tool is its all-in-one capabilities. It is a firewall with built-in IDS and IPS, load balancing, and VPN connections. The VPN integration, particularly with internal AD environments, provides stable connections. Centralized authentication is a notable benefit as well. We primarily use it for these features on our server level and are planning to expand their use in our complex environment to connect employees and services. 

Netgate pfSense is cost-effective because you can start using it for free. You can research how to install and configure everything, then install it virtually on any device or partition some hardware. This allows you to start using a firewall without any initial cost.

For larger companies, if you have one or two people skilled with the tool, they can design the complete network using it. That's all you need. You don't have to invest in expensive subscriptions or big hardware setups.

My only suggestion is that Netgate pfSense implement more graphical monitoring. While there are accounts with add-ons for graphical monitoring of data networking, IPS, IDS, and firewall-level events, having more graphical representations like blocks would make the tool more capable. Although it has commercial support and a good GUI, it can still be challenging for someone without firewalls, command lines, and networking knowledge.

Adding features to the solution through packages is somewhat limited. The marketplace doesn't have as many options as you might expect.

One example is the IPS/IDS system. Netgate pfSense still uses Snort 2.9, even though version 3.0 has been out for about a year. Version 3.0 offers important improvements like multi-core support, significantly speeding up processing. The solution seems slow to update to newer versions of these third-party packages.

The tool should provide beta versions with the latest package updates sooner so users can benefit from new features and improvements.

Another issue is the lack of a package marketplace. Despite being open source and customized by many developers globally, there isn't a wide selection of community-created packages. The reasons for this aren't clear to me - it could be security concerns or other factors.

Based on my experience using Netgate pfSense for about four years, I can't say the improvements in our environment are solely due to the product. It's a combination of Netgate pfSense and another monitoring tool we use.

Monitoring is crucial. The easier the monitoring and user interface, the simpler our team can work on and investigate issues. Accessing data becomes more difficult when you use commands or other complex methods.

With our third-party tools, log viewing is very straightforward. The tool logs everything important. This was helpful when our site was slow, and we needed to determine why. The logs from Negate pfSense and our IT systems help us identify issues.

However, the solution's combination with a third-party monitoring tool provides a graphical interface. This makes it much easier to review logs and pinpoint problems.

If Netgate pfSense had a better graphical interface, it would be one of the best products available. I think the graphical interface should be much better and easier to monitor. For example, I encountered errors when I installed HAProxy, a load balancer available in the solution. It was difficult to determine the errors because the backend wasn't working properly. It took us a long time to identify the exact issue because more detailed error information isn't directly available in the current interface. You must go through different steps to trace and see what errors are coming up.

If the tool could improve in this area and provide more error details directly in the interface, that would be beneficial. As for packages, if they could update to newer versions of third-party packages more quickly, that would be helpful. I understand they might not be able to use the very latest versions immediately, but if they could provide updates within three to six months of a new package release, users could try new features sooner.

One additional feature that would be helpful is SAML authentication. Many companies now use Azure or AWS; in our case, we use Office 365 for email and authentication. If SAML authentication was available in pfSense, we could have integrated it with Office 365, allowing users to log in directly using their existing credentials.

The tool can integrate with Azure AD internally, but SAML or two-factor authentication, such as SMS, would provide better security. Firewalls are usually kept behind the scenes and not exposed, but this feature would be useful in some cases.

We've offered Netgate pfSense to many clients, managing it for them and migrating them from existing firewalls. They're generally happy with the change. However, some clients were looking for these additional authentication features. While we can integrate with Office 365, a direct connection option would be beneficial.

I have been working with the product for four years. 

I use Netgate pfSense Plus. We mainly chose it for early updates and commercial support, as advertised on their site. I've only used the support once, though. We started with the free version, which worked fine without issues. After three to four months, we upgraded to the Netgate pfSense Plus environment. Since then, it's been very stable. We've never had problems that required rolling back changes after updates. The updates are very stable - we don't have issues when we update the firewall. So overall, it's been quite stable for us.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten. 

My company has five users using the solution in two locations. The solution's documentation shows that it is scalable. 

There is a lot of support material available on the Internet. You need to do some research. In my experience, I've only had to contact Netgate pfSense support once in the last four years, and that was because I messed up the operating system in our virtualized environment. 

We were previously using Cisco ASA 5500. After three years, we needed to upgrade the hardware and the subscription. At that time, we were moving from an on-premise solution to the cloud, so we decided to try Netgate pfSense. Our vendor recommended it. We wanted to get at least six months of experience with it to ensure its features were stable and it could handle higher loads without breaking. That was one of the main reasons we chose the solution.

The solution's deployment is straightforward. The basic setup took us just about two to three hours. However, designing our custom network configuration took a bit longer. Overall, we got the tool up and running in about three to four days in my environment. There were three people involved in the deployment process: myself and two other team members.

Netgate pfSense doesn't require much maintenance on our end. It's pretty smooth. We monitor alerts. When there's a new update, we test it in our staging environment to see if it affects anything. If it's smooth, we upgrade.

The tool has helped us save money. 

The tool is flexible; even the free, open-source version offers many features. From a cost perspective, even the subscription model for commercial support isn't too costly. However, it's important to have someone knowledgeable about Netgate pfSense to take advantage of it. While there are online resources, a professional or someone experienced can get much more out of the solution. I've heard that the IPS/IDS licenses and other features can be costly.

The solution is very cheap. It's so affordable that even students can use it on their laptops. It's a good, cost-effective product.

The solution has a single web interface, which you could consider a container. Within this container, there are multiple interfaces or sections. You must navigate to different settings to manage different aspects of the system.

So, while it's all contained within one web interface, you can't see or manage everything from a single screen.

I recommend the tool to our clients. We help them implement and support it. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

The solution's most valuable features are high availability and the VPN options. Netgate pfSense has the ability to support multiple interfaces and spin up virtual IPs.

What drew me to Netgate pfSense from the beginning is that it's free, open-source software. I wanted the solution for additional control over firewall routing, and there wasn't really anything else on the market that would do that.

Netgate pfSense is very flexible. I like that it can run on enterprise bare metal and Raspberry Pi. Obviously, Netgate has a lot of appliances ranging from extremely small to extremely large.

pfSense Plus is extremely low-cost. Its comparative features include high availability, the ability to tune system variables, and support for hundreds of interfaces.

It would be great for the solution to have better logs. Some of the solution's graphs that show visibility on system performance or session count lack resolution. For example, you may only be able to see the session count by day if you want to look back more than a month.

In contrast, we would want to see the session count fluctuate by an hour or five-minute increments. It would be helpful to be able to query larger data sets, even if you had to break them up into smaller subsets.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for seven years.

The solution's scalability is very poor past 5,000 clients and impossible past 10,000 clients.

I had a very poor experience with the solution's technical support.

Negative

I switched from Netgate pfSense to Fortinet. Scalability and high availability are significantly better with Fortinet. It took me about 10 to 15 hours to set up high availability in Netgate pfSense just because of the way it works with virtual IPs and CARP.

On the other hand, it takes about 15 minutes with Fortinet. It's just a completely different experience. Also, the performance availability for appliances is a thousand times better with some of the higher-end offerings at Fortinet versus the highest-end offerings that Netgate has.

The solution's initial setup is difficult because of the extensive setup it takes to achieve high availability.

In our case, it took us around 40 hours to fully deploy the solution from start to finish.

I think Netgate pfSense's TAC or support is a little expensive, considering how inexpensive everything else is. Netgate's most expensive appliance costs around $5,000. However, an annual subscription to TAC costs around $1,000, which is roughly 20% of what you pay for the hardware. It seems a little excessive.

I would say it's pretty easy to add and configure features to Netgate pfSense. However, if you add features that Netgate does not officially support, you can run into issues with your support contracts. It's easy to add features, but it's extremely difficult to support something that is not an official Netgate plug-in.

We saw the benefits of Netgate pfSense pretty immediately after deploying it. We have been scaling, though. As we got to a very large deployment across different sites, we started to see additional problems, but then we also saw additional value added. Initially, there's a lot of value, which increases over time, but eventually, you hit a wall where it's just not that valuable.

On the surface, it looks like pfSense Plus provides visibility that enables data-driven decisions. Unfortunately, after many back-and-forths with support, they say that it looks like the firewall has done something, but there's nothing in the log. There's no data to support their theories. On the surface, it looks like it should, but we found in practice that it was missing a lot of data that would help us make decisions that we needed to make.

The solution's total cost of ownership is good for what it is. I don't think I would ever use it in an enterprise environment anymore. As a value proposition, it's really good for a small business application or a company with multiple sites that you need to be able to interconnect.

You can set up an entire ecosystem for $ 5,000 to $ 6,000 with top-of-the-line hardware from Netgate. Unfortunately, with our user account, throughput, and bandwidth, we've just outgrown it and can't use it anymore.

We've bought appliances for Netgate pfSense's deployment, and we've also deployed the solution on separate machines. Most recently, we used the appliances.

Technically, we never got Netgate pfSense to a good solid state. For the four to six months we had it in production, it was constantly down and needed at least 20 hours of maintenance a week.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.