Netgate pfSense Reviews

I have at least two pfSense routers at home in my home lab, serving my house. Additionally, we use it in my company. We have our satellite office in LA, and we use it as the main router. The use cases involve a router, firewall, and DHCP server.

I was able to see pfSense's benefits immediately because I used it as a learning tool too. From the very beginning, I was able to inspect traffic and see what was happening on my network. That was pretty useful.

pfSense is flexible. I like it. I can install it on different hardware. I can virtualize it if I want.

It is pretty easy to add features to pfSense and configure them. If something is supported by Netgate and it is in their package manager, it is pretty easy, and if it is not, I would not want to add it. I would not be confident enough to put it on my firewall.

pfSense has not directly helped to prevent data loss, but it helps indirectly by protecting the network and not letting in malicious things.

pfSense Plus provides features that help us minimize downtime. Preventive notifications and ZFS snapshots are helpful features. 

pfSense Plus helps to make data-driven decisions to some extent such as which device is using the most bandwidth. The visibility that pfSense Plus provides helps us optimize performance.

The Tailscale integration is very helpful. The DHCP and DNS server functionalities, as well as the package manager, are also good. 

I am using its paid version. I am paying at home for the Plus version, but I wish they would pay attention to the community version. I know there is less incentive for Netgate to develop the community version, but it would be cool to have that.

pfSense does not give us a single pane of glass management. I know that they are coming out with that as a beta or alpha feature, but it is not there yet.

I have experienced only hardware-related issues with Netgate. They are not related to pfSense as a software. I purchased a Netgate firewall, an SG-4100, which is a $600 device, intending to make it a solid piece of my home lab and support the project. It died in one and a half years. I do not see the value in buying their hardware, as their customer support was not friendly or helpful. Eventually, I bought pfSense Plus, which allows using a roughly $200 device that offers part-swapping to keep the device alive or even buying two of them. The pfSense Plus subscription is roughly the same value.

Support for third-party hardware is less documented, not being their preferred option. For most things, it is pretty solid. Other firewalls such as SonicWall offer more protection features such as deep packet inspection. I know that is possible with Snort or Suricata. That is one thing that could differentiate open-source firewalls from the main players. 

Another suggestion is automatic updates to reduce maintenance for smaller setups.

I have used Netgate pfSense for roughly three to four years.

Since they fixed the DHCP issues, it has been pretty stable.

Scalability has never been an issue. I have not dealt with more than 10 gigabit traffic, so I have not experienced any problems.

They answer promptly. However, I do not feel valued when I pay about $150 a year, and they only include certain things for people without the Netgate hardware. They had some general first-time setup features but nothing that actually caused problems. For instance, when I imported my previous configuration to my new hardware, it was not covered. So, even if advertised similarly, it is not the same if I do not own the Netgate hardware.

Neutral

At work, in our main office, we use SonicWall. I also use UniFi Firewalls, ranging from smaller to larger ones, and actively manage two or three of them.

As compared to SonicWall, the user interface of pfSense is much easier to handle. It is also faster even though our SonicWall is a much beefier device. pfSense is more well-organized compared to SonicWall.

With their own devices, it was pretty easy. With third-party hardware, it was a little more difficult because certain devices are not as compatible. It is easier if people double-check compatibility, but in general, it is pretty easy.

It requires maintenance from me. I have to update packages and make sure that everything is running properly and the hardware is fine.

It is a one-person task. If you have the specifications and knowledge of what network segments and VLANs need to be set up, it can be managed by one person.

It is on the higher side. If you want to purchase pfSense Plus alone, the cost is roughly $150 a year, but the value provided justifies the expense. However, a lower-end tier option, around $100, would be beneficial.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities, for a business, pfSense makes much more sense. I was comparing different solutions and our SonicWall costs way more when we include VPN and other small features.

If installing on your own hardware, you should definitely research compatibility with FreeBSD, and use ZFS, which I believe is the default now. This allows rollback capabilities. It is important to read what is included in the pfSense support package before contacting support, as you might not get answers, and it might be easier to go directly to the forums.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

We use pfSense in our clients' offices to provide secure network access. For remote workers requiring private network connectivity, we deploy a Netgate pfSense router in both the office and the user's home office, establishing a robust IPsec connection between the two. This configuration offers superior security compared to alternatives like OpenVPN, as remote users simply need to connect their LAN cable to the home pfSense for immediate and secure office network access. We primarily serve small organizations with 10 to 200 employees, deploying a pfSense router in each main office and providing OpenVPN or IPsec connectivity. Additionally, we offer optional pfBlocker-NG integration for advanced threat protection, enabling the blocking of traffic from specific geographic regions or known malware sources.

We have several sites with multiple or backup-wide area networks. We use pfSense to manage these networks, configuring them for load balancing or backup as needed. To authenticate OpenVPN logins, we leverage Active Directory on our Windows Server, simplifying user management. Office managers can easily disable both Windows and OpenVPN access for users without needing to access pfSense directly. This centralized approach requires only a single robust passphrase for users to access both the VPN and the Windows domain.

I am accustomed to the interface and find it quick to use. However, I think a new user might need some time to adjust. That said, I've been using it for over 15 years.

As a network administrator, I fully understand the benefits of pfSense before deployment. While end users may not immediately recognize its advantages, I appreciate its value in eliminating the need for costly licenses associated with other firewalls like Barracuda and Checkpoint. PfSense offers a comprehensive suite of features, including VPN, user management, and advanced DNS, without requiring additional fees. This cost-saving aspect is a significant selling point for me when replacing older firewalls with Netgate pfSense. Not only do we improve network security, but we also reduce ongoing expenses, a benefit that becomes apparent to clients over time.

Adding features in the packages section of the interface is quite rapid, especially when limiting options to available packages. However, configuring unfamiliar or infrequently used packages requires research and time, ideally by someone with networking and firewall experience. While pfSense is not entirely plug-and-play, the basic setup is straightforward; adding features demands more technical knowledge. So, feature addition is easy, but configuration can be moderately complex.

pfSense can help prevent data loss by making it difficult for hackers to breach networks. However, most data loss incidents we see result from end-users clicking on malicious links or email attachments. When data loss or ransomware occurs, the issue typically lies with user error rather than pfSense. I believe that the networks I configure using pfBlocker, which restrict communication primarily to the continental US and other approved countries, may help block ransomware. Still, I cannot quantify the frequency of such occurrences.

Approximately ten percent of pfSense routers experience critical issues requiring a factory reset. Previously, this process involved contacting tech support and providing detailed information. However, pfSense has simplified this by offering self-service image downloads. This improvement significantly speeds up customer recovery time. Additionally, Netgate's pfSense Plus hardware comes with a Zero-to-Ping warranty, enabling easy setup and troubleshooting for end users. While not entirely plug-and-play, most users can easily install these routers, and Netgate's warranty provides additional support if needed. I've successfully utilized the Zero-to-Ping warranty several times and believe it is a valuable resource for both technicians and end users.

pfSense has helped enable data-driven decisions. It allows me to communicate the need for faster WAN lines to client management by providing concrete evidence of network performance. Additionally, pfSense offers detailed insights into OpenVPN user activity and IPsec traffic, facilitating targeted problem-solving. For instance, I can readily identify slow IPsec connections for remote users, such as user X, and advocate for necessary improvements based on these data-driven findings.

OpenVPN, IPsec, DHCP, and DNS are the most valuable features. I will also include pfBlocker-NG later in the list, but only a couple of sites use this feature. 

pfSense does offer a convenient single-pane dashboard, but I believe it could be improved with additional features. For instance, an administrator log for team members to record notes, such as adding a nameserver, removing user accounts, or other relevant information, would be beneficial. This simple log within the main status page could enhance communication and collaboration among the admin team. While the current status screen provides most of the necessary information, this extra feature would be a valuable addition.

It would be beneficial if Netgate provided a table outlining the recommended maximum WAN port speeds for their various models.

The documentation doesn't align with what I'm seeing on the console. This is frustrating because the online documentation doesn't match the dashboard, leaving me unsure of the correct steps to take.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for 16 years.

I would rate pfSense's stability a perfect ten. When I replace consumer routers with pfSense for small businesses with two or three employees, they are often amazed to discover the router can run for a year without a reboot. This starkly contrasts their previous experience with consumer routers that required weekly or bi-weekly unplugging.

I have been pleased with pfSense's scalability. While I haven't explored all its features, I have successfully backed up an old system and restored it to a new pfSense device, which I consider an upgrade. I know additional capabilities like load balancing and backup device management but haven't implemented them due to a lack of current need. PfSense offers much more potential than I've utilized.

The quality of the support is high. While the speed used to be somewhat slow, I've noticed a significant improvement in recent calls, connecting with a representative quickly within the past year.

Positive

We've used multiple firewall solutions over the years. Twenty years ago, we implemented Monowall. Subsequently, we switched to Barracuda, which proved highly problematic and required frequent technical support intervention. Our next choice, SonicWall, was an improvement over Barracuda but still presented challenges. Specifically, SonicWall's licensing model is burdensome, as it necessitates constant management on my part, a task end-users are unwilling or unable to perform. Though less frequent than with Barracuda, technical support interactions are still necessary.

Initial deployment is straightforward, taking approximately half an hour for each unit. While pfSense is not the issue, challenges often arise due to clients' limited understanding of their network configurations. A single person can effectively handle the deployment process.

I appreciate that pfSense eliminates the need for extra payments, license management, or feature limitations. This cost-effectiveness and its reliable Zero-to-Ping guarantee is its most compelling aspect.

The pricing seems fair overall, but I think they need more reasonably priced options for very small offices. They currently offer a few affordable units at the lower end, but then there’s a significant price jump to the next level. I remember they used to have a model around the 2100 range that was a good middle ground. I believe they should offer more choices between the lowest tier and the next one in terms of hardware. Additionally, I'd like to see a per-incident support option, which I don't think they currently provide. I haven’t checked their support options in a while, so I could be mistaken. However, in the past, they only offered annual plans. If I encounter a specific issue, I would prefer the ability to pay a one-time fee for complete support on that particular problem.

The total cost of ownership is great. pfSense is our most recommended appliance for router, firewall, and VPN functionality. 

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

Users don't need to do anything to maintain the system, but I like to check all pfSense instances every few months, install updates, and look for any irregularities. I try to check every single pfSense system if possible. pfSense needs to be manually updated.

I use pfSense to provide IT services for small businesses. They typically have a broadband or fiber connection through a router to the ISP, so they're looking for some additional security. We can get a Netgate appliance with pfSense for a few hundred dollars.

We saw the benefits immediately. I live in Edmonton, and one of my clients is a machine shop in Montreal. We configured the firewall and sent it to the shop with instructions on how to set it up. They set it up, and once it was running, I could remote in and start providing IT services to my client two time zones away.

It can help you prevent data exfiltration from the outside, but you'll always have a problem with employees who want to do bad things. It isn't a completely zero-trust approach. It has logs that will tell you if something seems odd. That requires the owner or IT professional to stay on top of it.   

The stability of the Netgate hardware and pfSense software helps to prevent downtime. At the machine shop in Montreal, we had an older Netgate model running for almost seven years, which we replaced last Christmas. It wasn't failing, but we upgraded it to ensure uptime. We spent about $200 on that device or about a few months of coffee for the office. You can deploy pfSense on your own device, but it gives the client comfort to see an actual device instead of something I cobbled together. 

I don't know if there's a particular dashboard other than the volume of data you are passing through the firewall that we check to ensure it is as expected. All of the businesses we handle are small, so we don't need some of the advanced features, such as VLANs, and I'm not going into them to fiddle with them constantly. If the power is somewhat dodgy, as it is in Montreal, they come back online in the proper configuration.  

One of the main benefits of our use case is pfSense's inclusion of OpenVPN. We can set up a server-client configuration so employees can access the office outside business hours. This enables us to provide secure remote access to their workstations and other devices inside their worksite. OpenVPN is included, so I don't need to purchase an expensive VPN solution with its own client. 

I also value the community on the pfSense website and other forums. If you're trying to set something up, there's invariably someone else who has done it before. It's open source, so the community is massive.

PfSense is quite flexible. You can tune it to meet your needs. If my client has something provisioned to their clients, we can run that through the firewall. We can also set it up so that everything is locked down and all traffic moves through the VPN. Like any other firewall, you can set up rules. I haven't encountered anything that I wanted to do that I couldn't. 

Setting up the VPN is always tricky, but adding features isn't hard overall. OpenVPN is easier to use than any other open-source VPN solution. It does all of the DHCP and DNS forwarding and other firewall tasks out of the box.  

In most of our use cases, the pfSense interface acts like a single pane of glass for me to log in, monitor, and configure. You can use the command line interface, but I use the web interface. I would only use the CLI to review logs because everything is on a text interface rather than a browser window, so it's easier. However, for a business user, the web interface is easier if they don't have any complex needs. 

Our customer's IT operations are optimized to go through the pfSense firewall and OpenVPN. It enables us to get work done without constant callouts from the clients. When we upgrade to a new unit, we give them configuration files to install on their workstations. 

They could improve the VPN wizard to make the configuration easier. I don't know what happened last time, but it was a little fiddly. Adding users isn't difficult, but it's a step that's in a different panel from the configuration of the VPN client itself. You need to create the user on the firewall and then associate that with the VPN. They should make it easier to link the firewall configuration with the VPN client.

I have used pfSense for between five to seven years.

PfSense has always been stable, even in an inhospitable environment. A machine shop is bad for devices because of all the dirt and oil, and I had one that continued running for five years without any complaints.  

I always pick a Netgate device that has sufficient hardware for each of my clients, but if I had to expand suddenly, I know Netgate has a range of devices that would work. However, I do think they focus on small and medium-sized enterprises.

I deploy pfSense on Netgate appliances. It's easy for a typical network engineer with no experience with pfSense. If you know about networking, it's an easy device to set up. Coming from a Cisco background, I found it dead simple to install. I have deployed boxes in under an hour. One person is enough to do it. The maintenance and updates are easy. I've never had an issue with updating and fixing bugs. You can do it all remotely. 

I rate Netgate pfSense nine out of 10. Having a basic understanding of networking concepts, like firewalls, routing, and VPN will help you navigate the pfSense interface. 

We primarily use the solution as a firewall and for managing traffic.

The interface and the integrated services are very useful.

pfSense offers very good flexibility. There are good plugins you can integrate into the software. We can use it for a firewall and to monitor internal traffic. We can do many things. 

It's not very difficult to integrate and configure features. At the install level, using the wizard is very simple. As a firewall, it's easy. You can watch usage and target effectively. If I have difficulties or questions or I need to understand how something works, there are videos and tutorials. 

We noticed the benefits of using pfSense pretty immediately. We could see it on the graphs that help us analyze the traffic.

We're able to leverage the single pane of glass interface. We can monitor everything from it from traffic to the state of the machine to memory usage and CPU. It provides good visibility so that we can make data-driven decisions. The visibility we get helps with availability.

Performance has been optimized under pfSense. We can filter traffic and limit internet use as needed. With it, we can control throughput.

The first time we deployed it, it was kind of tricky. There were many configurations. You need to first configure the alias, then you have all the IPs ordered correctly, and you can start to manage the VLANs. It would be ideal if we could implement in an easier and efficient way. 

One time, we tried to configure a wireless AP to the firewall and that was tricky. Understanding the interface was hard. It could be easier. 

The displays of all the plugins could have a better layout. You have to search through all of them to find what you need. They need a search button.

I've used the solution for one year.

We haven't had any issues with stability.

We haven't tried to scale the solution. 

We haven't contacted technical support.

Previously, we used a simple firewall called Linksys, among others. It was not very useful for analyzing traffic. pfSense is more granular in terms of firewall rules. 

The initial setup was straightforward, and there are a lot of tutorials online. You can just follow instructions. It's not too hard. The setup was fast. It took maybe half an hour.

There might be a bit of maintenance needed. We check from the main page to check it for CPU or disk failures. there might be some updates. That's it. Sometimes I go on Reddit and check to see if I should do the update or not. I remember once I read that someone suggested that we do not update and to wait for an update in a few weeks.

We managed the initial setup ourselves. 

The total cost of ownership is good. We don't have too many pfSense subscriptions across our network. However, it's pretty cheap compared to other firewall subscriptions. Plus, the pricing is inclusive. 

The pricing is good for us. It's not too expensive considering all of the features on offer. It's about $1700 a year. It could always be cheaper, however, for the most part, it's good. 

We use the Plus version of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'd advise users to always follow tutorials which can be found online. Be prepared. That said, the interface is not overly difficult.

I use Netgate pfSense personally at home and the data center, our headquarters, so it is for enterprise and personal use.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is an open-source tool and is available at a very low cost.

In terms of flexibility, the tool is great, especially the fact that it is open source. On Netgate pfSense Community Edition, people can write stuff into it and get plugins for it. Netgate pfSense Plus version does a review process with the help of Netgate, so you don't have to have many plugins for it. The tool is very open to modification if you need to do that.

The benefits related to the product can be experienced immediately after the product is deployed, especially in terms of the speed improvement and features that we don't have with the current solution or the current technologies that we don't have with our current solution.

To deal with data loss while using Netgate pfSense, you can always export the logs or dump them into a log server, specifically a Syslog server. I don't really view the boxes in the data warehouse other than the logs. There are features in the tool that we can send out to the syslog server, which is what we do in our company.

In my enterprise, we are getting ready to push out two hundred devices, and I don't see a single pane of glass management. I don't necessarily consider Netgate pfSense to be an enterprise product because it doesn't offer a single pane of glass management. With Netgate pfSense, you have to touch all devices to make a change. My company has been messing around with Netgate pfSense for some scripting on it, but it is still not what I am used to using in the enterprise. One window for controlling all devices doesn't exist in the tool.

Netgate pfSense provides features that help minimize downtime since it offers high availability on the boxes. You can use multiple WAN interfaces, so multiple ISPs can be plugged into your device to help manage if the service from one ISP goes down.

Netgate pfSense provides visibility that enables our company to make data-driven decisions since it offers graphs, traffic graphs, and firewall graphs. I can see if there is a client on the network that is just flooding everything. Yeah. The tool has graphs, charts, and log files.

The visibility of Netgate pfSense helps optimize performance. If I see there is a network that is a guest network that is just maxing out at 100 percent, I can attempt to give them some more bandwidth. I can modify the quality of service to give them better or more bandwidth.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities, if I assess the total cost of ownership of Netgate pfSense, I would say that I get what I pay for when it comes to Netgate. I get more than I am paying for, meaning the return on investment is great. I feel reluctant to talk about the good return on investment experienced by my company from the use of the tool because I don't want Netgate to charge more money, and as a non-profit company, it can hurt us. The total cost of ownership is fine since our company does not have to spend a lot of money on it. I know that if there was a Linux conference three or four weeks ago, and they were giving me some grief points on how it dies after buying boxes from Netgate in a year, it dies, but I have not experienced that. My total cost of ownership is great. Other people would buy the box, which would die in a year, so they would just lose money.

Netgate pfSense needs to have a single dashboard for managing all devices.

As an enterprise customer, I expect Netgate's sales personnel to inform me of the new devices that are coming out. For example, there was a time when I was getting ready to buy a device, and then I thought that I needed to hold on, and so the order failed. I thought I needed to wait a few days before ordering a new device. I was getting ready to order another device, which was Netgate 1541, but after two days, Netgate 8300 was released, and it was far better than what I was getting ready to buy. I was really disappointed that the salesperson from Netgate didn't ask me to hold off on my decision to buy Netgate 1541. You don't have to tell me that something brand new is coming out if you don't want to spill the beans or anything like that, but it would have been nice if Netgate had asked me to hold off on my decision to buy Netgate 1541. I was getting ready to buy a product that would have been, immediately two days later, an old technology. I just expect more from a salesperson. When going through Netgate's website, while trying to buy Netgate 1541, I saw there was a list of features at the bottom of the product page, so I had to select the features I wanted, but I couldn't have all the features at the same time, and the website would prevent me from adding extra features, which actually was the cause for the order to fail. I had added features that you can't have at the same time, but nowhere on the website did it say anything like that, and that led to a delay in my time frame. I was trying to get something to solve a problem at a certain time, and then it wasn't until a day later, a day and a half later, that Netgate called and said that I couldn't have all of the tool's features, which was something that messed up my installation time. Issues with the product are associated with feature requests. It is not necessarily the box itself but more of the company that needs to consider improving its approach. For the box itself, everything in a single frame should be released.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for five to seven years. I am a customer of the product.

I haven't had any device crashes yet. The stability is great. I have not had a device crash. When there was a device crash, it was for the one at my home when we had five power outages, and it burned my hard drives, but that was not because of Netgate's box.

It is easy to scale up. I will be visiting a site soon that has Netgate 1100, and I am going to put in a Netgate 4200 over there. I don't think I am going to have any issues. I will be able to copy things off the config of Netgate 1100 and dump it on Netgate 4200 with a few modifications. The tool's scalability is great. If I need to add a drive or replace one of the hard drives in the tool, then that is something that can be done easily.

Based on the customer support for our account to figure out why an order didn't get through or why we can't get this part, we have contacted Netgate's team, but not for actual support. The tool's community is fantastic, and it is one of the driving pieces that I sell to my decision-makers, considering that the community supports the solution. With community support, I am not just calling out to five or ten people. Instead, it is possible to reach out to the world to respond to an issue that might have been of a lot of concern.

I have never contacted the tool's technical support team for any technical support, but it was just a question with my order.

I have experience with Juniper, NetScreen, OPNsense, Cisco, and Meraki. If I consider the box itself, Netgate pfSense is better than the other tools I have used. 

From an enterprise perspective, I can't say Netgate pfSense is better than all the tools I have used because it doesn't have that enterprise management capability. As soon as they get that enterprise management capability, Netgate pfSense is the best out there in the market.

The ease or difficulty in the tool's initial deployment phase that one may experience depends on the box. If I speak about Netgate 1100, I believe that using a switched network interface or ports can be a little more challenging than trying to work on VLANs. The other boxes that aren't switched, like Netgate 4100 and the models above it, work perfectly fine and function as I would typically expect, so the installation is not hard at all, but you do have to know networking. I always hire people, and they are used to having stuff done for them when it comes to tools like Meraki. You just plug it in, and it works. The people I hire have no idea how to do any type of networking or act as IT or MSP professionals, and they can only work in the framework for which they have been trained. You do need to understand fundamental networking technology to make the tool work. For me, the installation is easy. If you don't understand fundamental networking technology, it can be hard to install the tool.

One person can manage the product's deployment phase.

There is a requirement to maintain the product since we have to touch each and every box to do software updates. The tool does require maintenance on our part.

I use the Netgate pfSense Community Edition and the paid version called Netgate pfSense Plus.

Netgate pfSense Community Edition is great and free. For Netgate pfSense Plus, we have to buy Netgate's boxes, and the pricing is great. As a non-profit organization, I would like to have a discount from Netgate, but if you are ready to buy a hundred boxes, it would be nice to have a discount. I understand that Netgate pfSense does not charge a lot more for the box than what we are paying for them. The pricing is fine.

In terms of how difficult it is to add features to Netgate pfSense and configure them, if I talk about writing from scratch, it is something that I don't do. If someone has a plugin, pulling that in is ridiculously simple. If I say that I want a Tailscale plugin, then I can put it in, and it is already in the system, and as long as I know how to do networking, you can figure out how to use a plugin since it is not hard at all in regards to Netgate pfSense Community Edition and Netgate pfSense Plus.

I have not used Netgate pfSense on Amazon EC2 virtual machines.

One needs to realize the difference in the switched version, and to do so it is important to understand Netgate 1100 and Netgate 2100 and the individually addressable ones since it is the area that threw me when I first got Netgate 1100, I was like, what in the world am I working on currently. Managing the VLANs on the tool threw me a ton, and it took me about an hour to figure out what was going on with the solution.

As the tool really needs centralized management, I rate it an eight to nine out of ten.

I am in IT. I use pfSense for my personal use. I use it to practice networking and understand how networks work. I apply all the networking-related things that I have learned to pfSense at home.

I also use it to isolate my IoT network from my regular network and from the devices I use for the cameras.

The main reason for implementing pfSense is that I like playing games. With pfSense, I can place quality control over the traffic traversing over the WAN connection or the Internet. I am able to prioritize and limit some devices to allow me to have a better connection to the Internet than some devices in our house.

pfSense is a flexible solution. It has features for setting devices into groups. I was able to group up the devices in our house to be able to set some restrictions on some devices and have full restrictions on other devices. It allowed me to control my kids' devices to limit access to the Internet to a certain time. It automatically stops on the Internet for those devices when that time comes.

pfSense gives a single pane of glass management in regard to the network. I was able to control everything in my network, which is good.

I use pfSense Plus. I got third-party hardware, not with pfSense, but I purchased the license to have a pfSense Plus version. That hardware went down a few days after I bought the license. I created a ticket, and the engineer allowed me to move it to another device because I had just recently purchased it. Thanks to them, I was able to have less downtime because I did not have extra money to purchase another license. I was able to bring it up as fast as possible. The backup and recovery of the configuration is very pretty easy. I just reuploaded the file and updated two lines of code, and that was it. Everything worked.

Everything works well. My streaming is working fine. My kids do not complain about any lags. I can play my games without having any issues. I do not experience any lags. When my wife is working, she does not have any problems downloading or uploading files back to her work. We are pretty happy with the performance.

For me, the firewall is most valuable because I can play around with the firewall. That is the best asset for me. I can limit what I want to limit, and I can open what I want to be open.

I like the versatility of pfSense. Compared to other products I have used for home and small businesses, this is the easiest to understand. It has enterprise features compared to, for example, Ubiquiti UniFi. Their router is limited to some features, whereas with pfSense I can do, for example, routing and dual WAN. I also have several VPN options. 

It has a lot of features, but I wish there were even more features. Some of the features I am looking for are still not there in pfSense, like, for example, content control. Because I have kids, I want to control the content or what they watch. There is a feature in pfSense called pfBlocker, but it is limited. If I set that up, it is blocked by an IP address. Sometimes my devices are borrowed by my kids. They are able to get a full connection to the Internet, but their devices are limited. If content blocking is added to pfSense, it would be great. If I can block content by a user, that will be a preferred solution.

The frequency of feature releases can be better. We have been waiting for some of the features for a while, but they have not been released. I know they prioritize what is used in the enterprise area, and then they provide some features for regular consumers like me. If they can balance that 50:50 and focus equally on the enterprise and consumer suggestions, it will be great.

The interface and support are perfect for me. I saw a post on their blog that they will be moving to the Linux operating system. Hopefully, they would have better wireless because the wireless for pfSense is horrible or horrendous. If they move to Linux, hopefully, they will improve it.

I have been using pfSense since 2020. It has been four years now.

It is very stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability.

It is scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for scalability.

We are a family of five. Five of us are connecting to the pfSense Internet.

They are great. They are perfect for me.

Positive

I have used TP-Link and Ubiquiti EdgeRouter. In regards to features, the two are on par. They are way behind pfSense. pfSense is way ahead of these two in terms of what it could offer. In terms of security, TP-Link is very bad, EdgeRouter is in the middle, and pfSense is way ahead. In terms of performance, TP-Link is worse, and EdgeRouter and pfSense are neck to neck. I prefer pfSense over others.

I installed it on third-party hardware. The longest period of initial configuration was when I deployed it for the first time. After that, it is very fast because I can back up my config and restore it if I break something.

It took an hour or two for all the installation and configuration.

In terms of maintenance, it requires regular updates. That is the only maintenance that it needs. I also need to monitor if any known or zero-day bugs are found in pfSense. I am watching that because pfSense is the device facing the Internet, so I need to be always alert about any zero-day bugs. I also need to be mindful of the configuration to not accidentally expose any ports. These are the three things required in terms of maintenance.

In four years of using it, that payment of 189 dollars per year has already paid off. Over these years, I only experienced it going down two or three times, which is less than 1% downtime per year.

It is cheap. If you are a technical person, it is a pretty cheap solution because first of all, the Community Edition (CE) is free. I am in Australia, and my pfSense license is about 200 dollars. It is not bad because it is per year and not per month. It is cheap compared to other solutions.

I am not using the hardware. I am using the software. It is very cheap. It does not cost me a lot. The only cost is just the one-year payment. If I need extra hardware, I need to purchase that from the third party whose hardware I am using.

I would recommend pfSense to others. I already recommended it to my boss, and he is using it now. He is loving it as well. It is easy to use, and there are a lot of resources available. If you have any problem, someone would have already encountered that problem and found a fix, so it is easy to fix based on that. It is very reliable. The downtime experience is very low. It is almost zero.

I would rate pfSense a ten out of ten.

My use case involved having a firewall from a different vendor, which was taken over and used as a bot in a network. This incident made me reconsider my firewall provider. 

I integrated pfSense, and I have not encountered any issues since. Initially, I used it as freeware as a virtual box, and it performed well. 

About two and a half years ago, I transitioned to physical boxes. We have more than one. My use case was to connect two offices and create an extended LAN using pfSense for point-to-point connections between the data centers.

I have never had an issue with pfSense, except when attempting to configure it. When left as is, it functions well.

Support is very good.

It is rather flexible.  

Having enterprise support was immensely helpful since I have run into problems using a plugin. Without it, I might have needed to purchase a new box.

I do use pfSense Plus. We had downtime before pfSense. We've never gone down using the solution. We haven't had any performance issues.

I like the plugin systems, even though I feel like I'm playing roulette. I'm not sure if it does what I want it to do or if it will break the original capability of pfSense. Plus, having all of these dependencies may be a liability. While I appreciate their availability and wish to develop my own plugins, time constraints hinder that. 

Since the language used in the documentation is difficult for a non-English speaker, I find it hard to understand. It assumes they understand the words that are used and sometimes I feel I need to get out a dictionary to get handle on what they are talking about. They need to simplify the language a little bit. 

Using a plugin for reverse proxy allows multiple URLs to listen on port 80, rather than a single IP address for multiple servers, however, this requires changing the default port of pfSense. When I changed the default port, I experienced difficulty accessing the device. I thought my password was incorrect, when in fact, the port change was the issue. I had to connect to the physical device using a special cable. While I found this surprising, I am too paranoid to use SSH due to its perceived vulnerability.

We're a security company. We provide solutions to prevent hacking. pfSense is really good at preventing outside access; however, as an attacker, there are endless opportunities to attack. There's no way for me to know who or what pfSense is blocking or preventing. pfSense doesn't tell you any information.

I've been using the solution for two to three years. 

I receive popup notifications indicating that we have run out of memory due to some unknown reason, despite using only 20% of the device's memory. I am unsure of the cause. There is nobody that can give me a good answer to this issue. Occasionally, I receive emails from sales about updates, however, sometimes, the device does not detect these updates.

We have not reached the point where it becomes stressed. Our device isn't that big in terms of size since we don't have a lot of big users. No one has complained of buffering or response times. Our internet is likely slower than our pfSense. 

I was really happy having enterprise support when issues arose. Without this support, I probably would have bought a new box.

We have premium support. It helps me as I didn't feel comfortable with all of the responsibility. It's helped us with tech IDs and getting into the system when there have been issues. 

Positive

Management provides a budget for purchases. Initially, I bought a product based on appealing flyers and sales promises. However, after purchase, I realized it was not as secure as anticipated. I liked that pfSense started off as partially open-source. We trusted the technology.

We don't do cloud services. We have an on-premies setup and wanted to use pfSense in our on-premises cloud. It works really well and we are very comfortable with it. We do a lot of research with nasty malware and have not seen anything able to hack it yet. We've done so many deployments that we're very comfortable with the setup and capabilities.

You just power it on and follow the Wizard. If somebody has never done any firewalls, they should do what the tech says.

I'm the only person that is allowed to touch it and I'm the only one with access. We have four sites and no issues. We've abused one of the plugins, the pfBlocker, that has a subscription URL that can get malicious actors and help us block their IP. We can update the firewall rules almost in real-time. That's the basic maintenance we do. It's mostly automated.

There are occasional updates, and we get notices. Sometimes, the devices do not see the update, and I get paranoid that it's a phishing attempt. I'm not sure of this is a bug or not. 

If instructed by my boss, I can complete tasks within four hours, adhering to pfSense's SLA. I don't mind being challenged. 

Monetary concerns are not my focus; I cannot justify saving on the firewall for personal expenses. 

I would recommend the solution to other users, including potential government clients. I've invited others to try and hack it, to showcase how robust it is, and no one can. It's impressing people. They're saying, "I need to get one of those."

I would rate the overall product seven out of ten. I'm stressed out by the documentation. I do have an interest in doing a pfSense certification course. The documentation is holding me back from giving me a ten. 

We use the solution as a gateway appliance for our own corporate network as well as that for many of our clients. It has become our go-to gateway appliance for clients when they're looking to to have a new network stack installed.

Many of our clients are smaller. However, the big features for them are usually the built-in OpenVPN server for client-based VPN access. The site-to-site links and IPsec site-to-site connectivity are great.

The flexibility is one of the reasons it's become our go-to unit. We don't, unfortunately, get to use so much of its flexibility on a regular basis. That said, I love the fact that it can basically do whatever we need it to do all in one piece of gear.

It's relatively easy to add additional features. They have an application store that already has tools that you can add to pfSense as you need them. At this point, there are 30 or 40 or more of them.

In the long term, when you buy a piece of hardware, you basically get updates for that device for the life of that device. You're not paying for additional licenses throughout the life of that device. You just pay for it once. We do Meraki devices as well, and, every year or few years you need a license. You have to renew. 

There are some features in pfSense that help you to prevent data loss. Even just on the firewall side, you can limit what people are able to reach out to. The outbound filtering has a massive effect on that. They also have some other web filtering tools built-in; however, we don't typically use those. We have other tools for that.

pfSense offers a single pane of glass type of management per client site.

The solution does provide features that help minimize downtime. We don't use these features. However, we know they are available. We have the ability to offer that service. You can hook up two of the gateways in tandem. That way, if one of them ever does fail, it automatically fails over to the other functioning unit. 

pfSense provides visibility that enables users to make data-driven decisions. You can look at the amount of bandwidth used by the device as a whole or as a client. If there's a problem or if Netgate isn't performing per the client's wishes, we can easily make an assessment.

The visibility in pfSense helps optimize performance. There are a lot of different visualization aspects, including some bandwidth charts as well as some other built-in ways of looking at the way the data or information is flowing through the system, which definitely allows for that.

Something that we would really love to see is a real single pane of glass management for multiple clients. Having a reseller portal of some kind that allows us to easily remotely access all the different pfSense gateways that we have out there (like Meraki does with their equipment) would be ideal. Right now, we have to manage client by client and just maintain access per site, basically.

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

They are super stable units. I have not had a single complaint about them.

They are definitely scalable. You can add your own additional storage to them. You can add additional memory to them if need be. They're very scalable, considering what you see in the rest of the gateway appliance market. Those are usually just static boxes where you get what you get, and that's it.

I have contacted support once. I have a Netgate pfSense box that I run as well. I got a little impatient when a firmware update was happening and thought the device locked up and rebooted and ended up having to push the default firmware back. I got help over email, and they were great. They gave me a copy of the factory firmware and I was able to recover the unit.

Positive

We've previously used Meraki. We use their gateways as well. We also used to use some Unify gateways but it was too limited. 

pfSense is great - and more flexible. It's better than both. It just lacks a centralized management portal. 

Initially getting into it, it took took a second or two just to get our team trained up on it. Since it's so flexible, there are some initial configuration assumptions that aren't made. You can do with the device as you wish. There's a lot of network equipment out there that has done a little bit too much hand-holding in terms of the initial configuration, however, those are also devices that are much less configurable. Going in, you want to understand networking a little bit more to make some of those decisions when you're setting up a pfSense box. 

How long it takes to implement depends on what you call fully deploy. We're still in the process of doing that. We have, especially on the Unify or Ubiquiti side, every time we have a client where one of those devices fails, we're putting in a pfSense box at this point. We deployed it on our own corporate network rather quickly. I had it done in a couple of hours, basically. 

There is some maintenance needed. The firmware updates, and we want to make sure that we're watching for when the new firmware is released, especially if it's being released to cover some known vulnerabilities.

We did the implementation all by ourselves in-house.

We are buying the Netgear hardware and we get the license along with it. The total cost of ownership is is extremely low when you compare it to a lot of the other devices or other gateway appliances that are available on the market.

The pricing is great - for the hardware, at least, which is generally what we're paying for. I was very aware of and paid attention to all the noise that went down when they changed their licensing, especially for the community edition. They created a new product called the Plus version of the license. 

For what they charge for it, which is maybe $100 a year, it's still good. If you wanted to build your own router, pfSense is more than worth $100 a year to have all that flexibility and maybe your own piece of custom hardware that you want to run it on. It's definitely a value-driven product.

We're using the Plus version since we buy the Netgate hardware. That comes with pfSense, and we're typically not building our own gateways.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

My advice to new users would be to practice with the product when you get an appliance. It's always easier to start learning with an appliance directly from Netgate. Just set it up and mess around with it maybe on a network that is a test network of some kind. Something that's not in production. It's not a hard device to understand if you understand networking at all.