Netgate pfSense Reviews

I use pfSense for my home network firewall. I also manage two Cloud platforms that use it. 

Netgate pfSense is flexible allowing for modifications to meet our needs.

With my strong security background and experience managing pfSense, adding and configuring new features is a breeze. While some might encounter challenges, my expertise allows me to navigate them with ease.

pfSense impressed me with its ease of deployment and low maintenance. It excels in protection and firewall functionality and offers a wide range of add-ins to further customize my network. After considering alternatives like OPNsense and Untangle, pfSense emerged as the perfect fit for my needs.

The single pane of glass provided by pfSense makes it easier to determine issues related to attacks and what is being blocked. I can see live logging of the firewalls and what rules apply to what.

pfSense does a good job helping prevent data loss using Snort which identifies and blocks suspicious traffic before it enters our network.

pfSense Plus offers a visibility feature that helps me optimize network performance. The dashboard displays clear traffic graphs and device load information, and I can customize it to show exactly what I need.

The total cost of ownership is extremely reasonable. pfSense is a good option, especially for people conscious of recurring expenses.

The most valuable features of pfSense are the high availability that easily allows failover to a backup unit and the Snort integration with pfSense and WireGuard.

Netgate pfSense can improve by adding a different OS layer other than FreeBSD.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years. 

Netgate pfSense has been stable.

pfSense's scalability is highly dependent on the hardware you choose, but despite this, it offers a strong ability to handle increased network demands overall.

In addition to pfSense, I have used OPNsense, WatchGuard, and Cisco. The WatchGuard rules were more straightforward than pfSense. New pfSense users might find deciding between floating and interface rules for specific scenarios confusing.

The installation is easy for those who are comfortable with command-line interfaces. It is quick and straightforward but they have to be careful when assigning the internal or external net because that can be challenging for some.

One person is enough to deploy.   

Netgate pfSense is competitively priced. The 4100 box is a good box for the price.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

Before deploying pfSense in your lab, I recommend checking the pfSense forums to learn about any potential issues or considerations other users have encountered.

I use pfSense as a home firewall and router. I don't use it for anything professional. When I first deployed pfSense, I was using my ISP-provided gateway, and there were a few things that I felt a little frustrated about. I didn't have control over the networks in my home and lacked some features, such as dynamic DNS, the ability to split different VLANs, multiple gateways, etc. There are a lot of features I use now, such as DNS or GeoIP blocking, that I knew about but couldn't take advantage of. 

The gateway failover helps prevent downtime. The ZFS Boot Mirror would also help prevent downtime in the event of a disk failure. The dynamic DNS is nice because when my IP changes, my web services won't be affected because it automatically caches my new IP.

PfSense has features that drive data-driven decisions. I was using pfSense years ago on a capped internet connection. It was a Comcast connection with a set amount of data I could use monthly. One useful thing was that it had the traffic totals as a package, so I could track the amount of data I was using and the clients that were using it broken down by client and network. I can determine how much data I use to ensure I don't exceed that limit. That's something I couldn't find in any other similar product.

From a performance perspective, it can help in terms of bandwidth and things like that because I know that the machine I'm using has enough processing power to establish all of my routes, DNS blocking, IDS, IPS, etc. I can utilize the full spectrum of my connection and a custom 10-gig NIC. If I had a smaller off-the-shelf product or an ISP-provided gateway, it wouldn't have the performance I need.

I'm using pfSense Plus, which has several features I like, such as the ZFS boot environment. I support Netgate because they're one of the biggest contributors to FreeBSD, so I'm happy to contribute. The most valuable feature to me is the gateway failover.  The area where I live has a lot of natural disasters and times when my Internet connection will go down. I work from home sometimes, and my wife works from home all the time, so it's essential to have a reliable connection. I like that it can automatically pick the connection based on packet loss.

The flexibility seems to be excellent. It has a large set of features to choose from that are built into the UI, so I can do 99 percent of it through the interface. It's also nice that I can run it on my own hardware. I don't necessarily need to buy a Netgate appliance, even though they make good products. It's nice that I can run it just about on any x86 PC with a dual NIC.

If we're adding a plug-in to the pfSense platform, that can be difficult, but I don't mind because Netgate vets the plugins before they make them available. That said, I found FreeBSD easy to deploy, and adding custom packages to it is simple. 

It doesn't prevent data loss in other machines, but pfSense has ZFS built in and can mirror it in two disks in different boot environments. If I have a corrupt OS, a bad update, or something else that goes wrong so that I can't connect to my Netgate, that's something built in so I don't have data loss on my firewall.

The dashboard is extremely easy to use. I like that I can go to one page and see the status of my hardware, packages, gateways, interfaces, disks, RAM, thermal sensors, and traffic graphs. It's a one-stop to look at each item and see everything operating properly. I can see them in different menus in the UI, but having one page where I can view them together is nice.

I would like them to have more security platforms. The pfBlocker is nice, but they don't have anything native for CrowdSec or Fail2Ban. I'm running CrowdSec on a web server instance on my server instead, but I'd like to move more of these services to the edge and put them in pfSense. I think that's something that's coming. I don't know if Failed2BAN is, but I'm sure CrowdSec is a popular platform, so it would be nice to have a package that's native to the platform. 

I've used pfSense for about five years.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for stability. I've never seen it crash, and I have deployed two of them without any problems.

I think the scalability should be pretty good. I can put two of them into high availability. If I add more clients and start to deploy a lot of these for a small business, it would be able to handle that. I don't have experience doing that personally, so I can't speak to that, but I have seen evidence of it being used in a more scaled environment.

I rate Netgate support nine out of 10. I only needed help from the support team to transfer a license because I bought new hardware. They could answer my questions pretty easily.

Positive

I've tried UniFi gateways. The feature set was lacking, and it ran on substandard products. Unlike pfSense, I could not run it on my equipment. I've run OPNsense, which was a fork of pfSense at one point. I didn't like the UI or their documentation, but it seems like a fine product. I've also tried OpenWRT back in the day. 

Deploying pfSense is easy. I'm not a network administrator, but I'm familiar with computers. I can install it on a USB and set it up like any other operating system. The documentation is excellent. I can configure it based on that, and many YouTubers cover it.

The only people who would have any problems installing it would be people who don't know how to use a computer beyond basic functions. Anyone who's installed Windows can easily install pfSense, and anyone who has used an off-the-shelf consumer router would know how to use it. If you don't change anything, it doesn't require any maintenance besides updating packages twice or thrice annually.

The price of pfSense seems reasonable. I pay around a hundred dollars a year for pfSense Plus, which is inexpensive for such a complex product. It's also good that they can still release a community edition. If it started to get extremely expensive to the point where it was more of an enterprise-only product that costs thousands of dollars a year or something like that, I might consider stepping down to the community edition or looking elsewhere.

The total cost of ownership seems pretty low because you have the cost of the OS and VPN. If I'm paying for a VPN that's probably five to 10 dollars a month, and the firewall is already included.  

I rate Netgate pfSense nine out of 10. It's an excellent product. I advise new users that you don't need a Netgate product if you're deploying it at home. It's one way to go, but pfSense works on any old mini PC or PC you have lying around. You can get something off eBay and throw a 20-dollar network interface card into it and you're off to the races. It's not as expensive as you think to get started. The basic routing and firewall rules aren't too complicated. Don't be intimidated, and it's not expensive.

I use Netgate pfSense as my office firewall.

I implemented pfSense as a firewall, VPN, and content filtering solution using pfBlocker and configured it to verify HAProxy certificates.

Most of our pfSense deployments are on existing machines with a small amount in the cloud.

pfSense offers excellent flexibility and works well with both physical appliances and virtual machines.

The ease of adding features to pfSense and configuring them depends mainly on the user's experience. I find it extremely easy.

Firewalls and Network Address Translation offer immediate benefits once configured, as they are foundational security measures. Other features, however, require more extensive configuration and testing before their advantages become apparent.

Compared to other firewall solutions, pfSense's interface is user-friendly and straightforward.

pfSense allows us to configure multiple internet connections and firewall rules to minimize downtime.

It provides visibility into our network by capturing and delivering log data, such as Syslog, firewall logs, and other relevant information. This enables us to make informed decisions based on data analysis.

pfSense can help optimize network performance. When using appliances, we can install more than ten gigabit network interface cards and add more as needed, depending on the hardware capabilities. Typically, new appliances come equipped with ten-gigabit network adapters or ports. We can significantly enhance network and server communication speeds by fully utilizing these ten-gigabit connections.

The most valuable features of pfSense are the pfBlocker, HAProxy, NAT, and VPN.

I am unsure if it's feasible, but I have previously utilized a web VPN interface with Cisco Firewalls that allows VPN connections through a website, eliminating the installation of VPN software. Such a feature would be a valuable addition to pfSense. Additionally, an easy method to monitor pfSense within other monitoring software would be beneficial.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years.

We have encountered only minor and infrequent stability issues.

Netgate pfSense is highly scalable.

The quality of the technical support is good, but if we cause an issue, we have to pay for the support hours.

Positive

I have previously used WatchGuard Firebox and OPNsense, but I prefer pfSense for its excellent usability within my company. Other firewalls like WatchGuard and OPNsense are often retained due to customer preference or specific requirements, but most of my deployments utilize Netgate's pfSense.

Deploying a single pfSense box is relatively straightforward. However, the process can become more complex if outdated hardware is used and network cables must be reconfigured. Deployments using Netgate appliances tend to be more straightforward.

We can have the Web GUI up and running in under 30 minutes, and a complete deployment can last up to four hours. One person is required for each deployment.

The pricing is reasonable.

Netgate pfSense offers effective total cost of ownership by combining firewall, VPN, and router functionalities into a single solution.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

pfSense does not have any built-in features specifically designed to prevent data loss. Instead, we must configure various functions to indirectly protect against data loss, primarily as a preventative measure against unauthorized access to our servers and equipment.

I use both the paid and community versions of pfSense. Most of my appliances use the paid version. In the cloud, some virtual machines come with the free community version.

Maintenance is required to open ports and create VPN users.

I have two installations at schools as firewalls. The biggest drivers for using pfSense were cost-effectiveness and functionality. It offers higher functionality for its cost.

The benefits are fairly obvious at the beginning. There's no specific time frame required. The flexibility and consistency of the product are what draw me to it, regardless of the size or capacity of the operation. It's easy to deploy.

Arguably, the use of products like Suricata for intrusion prevention could help prevent data loss.

It gives a single pane of glass for each individual device, but not across multiple devices. pfSense could catch up with other market providers by offering a view across multiple devices, but the current interface is fine. It is just we have to individually manage each one. 

There are two versions of pfSense, the paid "Plus" version and the free "Community Edition." I use the "Plus" paid version. 

The way pfSense handles system updates is pretty good. The updates are virtually transparent to any downtime. I've had pfSense boxes running for 200 to 300 days with no downtime. From a software standpoint, pfSense is about as bulletproof as it comes.

pfSense provides visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions. Its reporting is effective. The data is effective in making decisions based on traffic. It is not just one feature, it is how we manage data traffic. It provides adequate information to make decisions based on traffic. 

I have used pfSense in virtualized environments, just not on AWS.

It allows me flexibility in hardware size and capabilities while maintaining the exact same interfaces and controls. 

I also like the fact that based on its operating system, it has applications that can be added, such as IDS/IPS and filtering.

I would like to see a single pane of glass for multiple devices.

From a service provider standpoint, it is a bulletproof operation to deploy. Aside from being able to manage and monitor multiple devices from a single pane of glass, that would be the only thing I would change.

I've used pfSense, probably for the last two or three years off and on.

It's one of the most bulletproof solutions out there. I can't recall a problem where the system locked up or had any issue that required intervention to get it started back up again. 

Aside from possibly a hardware failure, I haven't had any problems. And that's not the software.

Scalability is one of the reasons why it's a good product. You can utilize it in a budget-friendly way as well as a full-on enterprise. pfSense is almost infinitely scalable. Obviously, hardware is the dictating factor.

I have never had a reason to contact customer service and support. 

I've used Unifi products, DrayTek products, and Meraki products.

From a capability standpoint, I would put pfSense at the top of functionality. DrayTek comes close; however, it lacks the add-on applications. So, I would put pfSense at the top. 

I build the machines myself. Their hardware is not overly special, and I think it's overpriced, so, I build my own.

It's easy to deploy them, but then I've worked with them for a while. If I reflect back at the very beginning, there is a bit of a learning curve, but I don't think it's that steep. Overall, it's fairly easy.

It's fairly easy to add and configure features in pfSense, though it depends on the application. So, it is moderately easy. Some are simple, while others require a lot of preplanning and time to configure.

One person can deploy it, but the deployment time varies because it depends on the network design. It can be up and running in ten or fifteen minutes, but configuring it for the network design may take longer.  

Not much maintenance is required from the end user. Netgate pfSense do a very good job of keeping the application and operating system up to date by itself. Occasionally, applications require updates that need manual intervention, but for the most part, updates can almost be automated.

pfSense's pricing or licensing model is very affordable. Netgate hardware is a bit overpriced, but the software itself is arguably underpriced.

I have not come across a more effective product. Unifi products are inexpensive but not feature-rich by any stretch of the imagination. From a pure feature standpoint, hands down, I would argue that Meraki is as capable and comparable in features, but the cost is prohibitive for most small businesses.

From a pure feature-function standpoint, pfSense has the best total cost of ownership, once it's installed, I don't have any problems with it. If taking into account the software licensing, the hardware, and the amount of time it takes to manage, I'm not sure there's a better TCO on the market.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

I am using pfSense for its firewall, gateway, and intrusion detection. I used the Community Edition for years and then switched to the pfSense Plus free-from-home edition. There was a bit of turmoil when IXSystems announced that they would no longer offer the free-from-home edition

We immediately realized the power when we deployed it a few years ago. It exceeded our expectations. As time went on, I discovered more features in the different packages they provide and whether they fit my needs. Over time, it's been a learning process, and I've been greatly impressed with almost every aspect of this product. It has all the things I wanted but found lacking in other products.

All of the features work together to prevent data loss or any compromise of your data. It all boils down to the rule set. I have mine configured so that all the data goes out depending on my Netgate device. Some machines go through a particular VPN connection. If that connection goes down, I've got the rule set configured like a dead man's switch. It's cut off from the outside world, and I get an alarm, and it allows no more attempts to let traffic pass through that connection.

It helps to prevent downtime. Whenever there is an issue, it's the first place I look because I can check the statuses of various interfaces to check whether they're up and then zoom further out to see if it's something in my internet provider, like a faulty cable. It enables me to reduce downtime by quickly determining where the problem might be.

PfSense provides the visibility I need to make data-driven decisions. For example, if I have a spike in bandwidth usage, it shows me which devices on my network are suddenly eating more bandwidth. I can see what's causing that. It also greatly reduces the time spent maintaining my network, so there's a productivity boost.

PfSense has a learning curve, but once you've mastered that, it isn't that difficult. It's very flexible, and you can do almost anything necessary to secure a home network. It has packages that expand its capabilities. For example, you can install Snort if you want intrusion detection. If that's unimportant to you, you can use it to check the bandwidth of all the machines in your network.

Adding features is simple. You go into the menu to check which ones are available and click on the ones you want to install. If you've done your research on the packages you want and the settings you'd like to use, it's a matter of walking through the configuration in the menu. When removing the package, it will revert the settings 99 percent of the time. 

I like the interface. You can arrange the windows to see the important information and put them in the order you want. You can see the various interfaces you have at a glance in a single pane of glass. I have certain bits of information I want to see first, and there are secondary or tertiary pieces of information. If you are using VPN connections, you can see their statuses. You can see hacking attempts, which are logged. 

It's powerful. You can get quite granular in setting up a highly topical application of pfSense, but if you want just basic protection, you can do that easily. It depends on your needs and how brave you are. You can go deep into the system and do some cool things with it or set up the bare protection you would get from any firewall.

I'm trying to set up a gaming server for multiplayer games like 7 Days to Die. I spent three or four days trying to publish a private IP address through pfSense to the outside world. Some commercial and consumer-grade routers can do this, specifically gaming routers, but pfSense is not intended for this usage. 

That's a feature I'd like to see added, where you can go into a submenu, turn it on, and specify which machine or IP address you want to publish. It's not a must-have, but it would be nice to have. I spent a long time trying to figure that out. Ultimately, I was successful, but it was not intuitive.  

I have used pfSense since 2016.

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. You must have a license for pfSense Plus, and I called them about an unexpected hardware issue that caused me to switch machines. I emailed explaining the situation and got a response the same day. I provided all the information on the new box, and they gave me a license. It was a pleasant, non-stressful experience. 

I have used Smoothwall and a few other things that have been abandoned. I liked the look and performance of Smoothwall's interface. It had many of the same features as pfSense, but its capabilities weren't deep enough. I've also used basic Linux distros set up as firewalls, but pfSense is oriented toward an enterprise-level deployment, and I find myself between hobby and enterprise. I also like the added features pfSense provides. 

I am not using a Netgate appliance. I deployed pfSense on a very small machine that has plenty of RAM for the overhead, logs, and speeds I want for my network. 

When I first installed pfSense, there was a bit of a learning curve. I had to sit down with the documentation and figure out what to do. It wasn't difficult— just time-consuming. That information has carried forward with me. Other people look at me like I'm some kind of expert but I'm really a few pages ahead of them in the manual. 

PfSense isn't something you can turn on and forget about. You need to configure the solution and test it. Then you can turn it on and let it run. From time to time, you have to come back periodically to make sure everything is still fine. The initial deployment takes about 30 minutes. It was a one-person job.

I would like to see the price of pfSense lowered by about $50, or maybe they could create a category for home lab users like me with one device. I'm not running a business or profiting from it. I realize that people need to get paid for the work that they do, so I can't complain. They decided that they needed to change their model after providing the product for free for many years. 

Before they changed and started to charge for pfSense, the total cost of ownership was phenomenal. It still offers tremendous value, but that was an adjustment. You can choose to go back to the community edition or just pony up the money.

I rate Netgate pfSense nine out of 10. I only give it a nine due to that recent issue setting up the game server. I eventually figured it out and published my solution to the forums. Otherwise, it would be a perfect 10. 

I use pfSense at home, and my friends and family use it in their homes. I'm also the IT solutions administrator for a council of governance organizations, and I use it for them. I use pfSense Plus at home and the community edition at some of my friends and family's houses.

I pfSense Plus at home and use the community edition at my friends and family's houses. I have used the community edition multiple times in labs, but I use pfSense Plus for all of my enterprise applications.

I started seeing the benefits when I began playing with it at home 10 years ago. It was an immediate success when I put it in enterprise locations because it was much cheaper than WatchGuard. I was familiar with pfSense, so I quickly trained my staff on it. They know how to operate everything well in pfSense.

With pfSense, you can do a failover. I have used that before, and I see it as a benefit, but there are some drawbacks. You have to use multiple external IP addresses to set it up, but it works well. However, I don't use the failover anymore because of the price. You can have two of these things on the shelf, and in the event of a failure, you can get another one up within five minutes by throwing it on there, configuring it, and plugging it in. That's my failover plan for all my main locations.

PfSense's visibility enables me to make data-driven decisions. I love the way they do geoblocking. You can see where you're improving. The logging ability is diagnostic. You can see all kinds of data. For example, when I make a new rule, Immediately know what's going through that rule. That visibility is very helpful in knowing immediately if my rules are being applied correctly. 

The most valuable feature of pfSense is that it's a stateful firewall. I also like the way the rules are implemented on the firewall. It makes things much easier to see at a glance. 

PfSense is the most flexible device I've ever used. It's open-source software. I've used all the big names, including Palo Alto, WatchGuard, and Sophos. In terms of dependability, this is the best of them. 

It's simple to add and configure features and easier than some of the big competitors like WatchGuard. The front dashboard on pfSense is very customizable. You can get it at first glance. Everything you need to do is in that single box. It shows you if your LAN and interfaces are up. You can see what kind of traffic is going across each interface because they give you a traffic graph that you can do for each interface. 

You can see if your gateway is up and precisely how much data passes through each interface. I like how you can get direct visibility over your IP address updates. If you're not running a static IP address, there's another cool thing on the front page where it shows when the dynamic DNS updates. The way you can customize that dashboard is cool. I haven't seen that with other firewalls, and pfSense gives you good visibility at first glance.

I don't think pfSense's web filtering solution is the best, so I don't use it for that purpose. They could add a little better web filtering solution to pfSense. They have solutions in place, like SquidGuard, but they aren't very good. 

Another feature about pfSense I would improve is adding a single pane of glass management for multiple units I manage across the municipal district. I would love to manage all those devices through one single pane of glass, but that's not a deal breaker for me.

We have used pfSense for around 10 years.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for stability. I've never had a Netgate system fail on me.

The scalability of pfSense is great. It costs very little to expand to multiple systems across multiple locations. It'd be better if they had a mass edit platform where you're running multiple systems. I've heard quite a few people in the community talking about that. I heard someone in France was developing a dashboard that gives you visibility across multiple boxes, but the cost of deployment is very cheap. It's easy to put boxes out there and write rules for them. 

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. Most of the tech people I have contacted seem to know exactly what they're doing. They've got, like, 10 people named Chris working support. Every Chris that I've ever spoken to has been spot on. Every once in a while, if I call after hours or something, I might get someone who isn't as adept at it, but they quickly escalate it to someone who can fix the issue. 

Positive

I have used Palo Alto, WatchGuard, and Sophos, and all the major competitors, but I would compare pfSense to WatchGuard, the one I have the most experience with. In my type of environment, pfSense wins hands down over WatchGuard because it's a stateful firewall. One thing I've hated about WatchGuard is that it's not a stateful firewall. It's rules in and rules out. You end up getting thousands of rules over a four or five-year period. PfSense enables you to put notes on your rules. 

If you have a question about a rule, you can read the note you made when you made that rule. Having the ability to document your rules in the dashboard has been a game-changer for me. After you have used a stateful firewall, it's hard to go back because it's much harder to make rules on both sides. 

Deploying pfSense is as easy as any other system. It helps that pfSense has a massive user community and some great YouTubers, so you can go to YouTube University and become a professional with pfSense quickly. You can learn to do some complicated edits and set up complex VPNs. It takes only 20 minutes from start to finish. For maintenance, you only need to update it when the updates come out and change the configuration of your rules as needed. 

PfSense offers huge savings. The price is the lowest in the business. The only thing you can use in place of pfSense is a fork like OPNsense. I'm more familiar with pfSense, so I never got on the OPNsense bandwagon. 

I rate Netgate pfSense 10 out of 10.

My company uses Netgate pfSense firewall routers for some clients, but I choose the device based on their needs. For locations like restaurants that require constant internet, I use a different device with cellular failover built-in. The cost-effective Netgate pfSense is a good option in simpler locations like doctors' offices. I can leverage Netgate's ability to handle multiple ISPs for clients with large internet demands. Ultimately, the choice depends on the client's budget and specific requirements.

In my role, I decide what our clients should implement for their network security. I want to create a secure environment by separating the business network from the Wi-Fi and phone networks. To achieve this separation, pfSense uses different subnets to effectively block any incoming traffic attempting unauthorized access to the network.

pfSense is highly configurable, offering flexibility to tailor its features and functionality to each client's network needs.

pfSense offers a wide range of plugins and add-ons, making initial configuration straightforward. However, since I primarily rely on endpoint security products installed on clients' workstations for their overall protection, my pfSense setup focuses on basic functionality. This includes configuring the firewall for my in-house network and leveraging its ability to handle multiple WAN connections. Ultimately, pfSense's affordability and ease of use make it a great choice for me as a secure and customizable router/firewall solution.

Network segmentation offers the biggest benefit for my clients. By creating separate Wi-Fi, phone systems, and business network segments, I can isolate any security breaches and prevent them from spreading throughout the entire network. As the decision-maker, I prioritize client security without needing them to understand the technical details. My focus is ensuring their networks are secure.

I have never had any downtime using pfSense Plus.

The most valuable features of pfSense are its ability to segment networks, create different subnets, create different VLANs, and use the VPN, as well as its affordability.  

pfSense lacks a centralized web dashboard for viewing all my clients' pfSense dashboards. A single pane of glass for both web access and management would be a game-changer. This missing interface is my biggest frustration with pfSense, and improvement is sorely needed. I have clients all over the United States and would deploy many more pfSense firewalls if it had a centralized web dashboard.

I started installing Netgate pfSense for clients almost three years ago.

I would rate the stability of Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

We've worked with almost every firewall: SonicWall, Cradlepoint, Ubiquiti, Fortinet, and UniFi devices. You get into the licensing of some of those with SonicWall and Fortinet, and it's just not the product that I like to sell to my clients. I'm always client-friendly. I want to find the most affordable product for them that does the best job. NetGate pfSense is the right one for some but not for others.

The deployment is simple. We preconfigure the device in the shop and then take it out and hook it up in less than one hour.

We have three people total who deploy the firewalls, including myself.

Netgate pfSense is a set-and-forget product other than deploying and periodically updating the firmware. pfSense has been solid for me.

Unlike many firewalls that require annual licensing fees, making them expensive for small businesses, pfSense is an affordable option.

I would rate Netgate pfSense seven out of ten. The only area of improvement is the web dashboard, which is currently lacking in pfSense.

I use other products to control data security. Most of my clients don't have an in-house server. I work with small businesses, and that's why the Netgate pfSense device works well. For my larger clients, we go to the cloud for data storage and data security with redundancy. So, I don't use pfSense for data security at all.

pfSense is a good value for some clients; it's client-specific. It depends upon other things we are deploying there, such as what kind of Wi-Fi network we use. If we are adding a VoIP phone system. It just depends on what the client's needs are, but It is the right device for the right client.

A lot of our clients are small businesses. I've got one fairly large business. It is a restaurant group nationwide with 700 employees, but its main office has maybe 30 to 50 employees. So, that's probably my largest deployment of the Netgate device.

The only maintenance required for the pfSense firewalls is applying the occasional firmware updates.

Some MSPs are more focused on making money. I'm not. I'm focused on the right fit for the client, and the money takes care of itself. pfSense is a great device. I'm not focused on what will make me money. I'm focused on what is best for the client. In many decisions, the Netgate pfSense is the right decision for that client.

We use Netgate pfSense as the next-gen firewall because it has a lot of additional capabilities.

The solution's most valuable features are its ease of use and versatility. You can do anything you want with it. We implemented the solution for better security at better prices.

Netgate pfSense is extremely robust and stable compared to other firewalls.

You can use Netgate pfSense as a very basic firewall or with next-generation capabilities and full monitoring. With the command line and the openness of the platform, you can do a lot of things with the tool.

It is extremely easy to add features to the solution and to configure them. We have extensive monitoring capabilities that we have configured into Netgate pfSense so that we can probably monitor any firewall available. We have also utilized the solution's DNS black holes features.

When configured properly, the solution's data loss prevention capability is absolutely top-notch. We use the solution to monitor and detect users' odd or anomalous behaviors on the network, which are usually malware-related. We also use the tool to protect against various blacklists.

We use Netgate on Amazon and have one of their firewalls. Using pfSense Plus on Amazon EC2 has helped simplify our EC2 network. It has definitely helped us with Amazon and tightening things down there.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities, Netgate pfSense's total cost of ownership has been very good. For your infrastructure, you're typically looking at five to seven years. Netgate pfSense is definitely punching above its weight in that sense because it comes at a lower cost.

Based on our experience, it lives that long and longer than what you would expect. The solution's ROI and longevity do shine in that sense.

The solution's internal logging could be improved. However, it does have some external logging capabilities. It would be more problematic if you didn't have a very robust environment. We developed our own internal API about five to six years ago, but I hear all the time on newsgroups that one of the solution's biggest problems is API.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for over 15 years.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Netgate pfSense is a highly scalable solution. I would say there are at least three of us who are fairly proficient with the solution, almost at an expert level. We have a few others who utilize it, but they're limited in what they can do. Most of our clients for Netgate pfSense are small and medium-sized businesses, but we also have some larger businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability ten out of ten.

The times I've worked with the solution's technical support, they've been excellent.

I rate the solution’s technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

We are in the managed IT space and constantly deal with numerous, big name firewall vendors. Aside from the cost alone, Netgate pfSense provides a lot of benefits. Even if Netgate were the same price as the rest of the other vendors, I would still prefer to use Netgate just because of its ease of use.

The solution's initial setup is very straightforward. There's even a built-in wizard that will take you from out of the box to basic firewall setup in about 9 steps.

The solution's deployment time depends on the complexity of the environment that you're going into. On average, the deployment takes probably less than a day. We have a team involved in the solution's deployment.

We have seen a return on investment with Netgate pfSense. We've won some bids for firewall replacement jobs based on the cost alone.

I think Netgate pfSense is very fairly priced. I think it's a great way to get people locked in by being a little bit cheaper than many other solutions. Once they see it, they wonder why they would use anything else.

One of the features of pfSense Plus is backup capabilities, which didn't really help us because we had our own backup solution built in for several years. We also keep additional firewalls available if something like a storm comes through so that we can restore the configuration in five to ten minutes without too much trouble.

pfSense Plus doesn't provide a lot of features and benefits, but we use it because we want to see them continuing to develop the solution.

Netgate pfSense gives us a single pane of glass management, but we don't live in the firewall itself. We monitor it from our single pane of glass, which we're pulling about 20 other security stack solutions into as well. We're pulling in a lot of other enterprise-level solutions, including EDR, vulnerability scans, domain filtering, etc.

Since we have a few hundred clients, we have both cloud and on-premises deployments of Netgate pfSense.

Any product requires some care and feeding. It goes back to our monitoring aspect. As a general rule, you have some firmware updates about every six months. You definitely have a few things to maintain here and there in Netgate pfSense, but it's minimal compared to other solutions.

The solution's cost alone is well worth it. I would recommend it for its adaptability to any complex environment with added security features. You can start off by just doing a standard firewall and then grow from there and really expand on its security features. I really can't think of any reasons why you wouldn't use it. Netgate pfSense is pretty much all we use, and we use a lot of different vendors when we go to different places.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.