Netgate pfSense Reviews

We use pfSense as the primary firewall for our data center. 

We have a high availability setup, so we have had no downtime. PfSense gives us metrics about how the firewalls perform in terms of CPU, memory, etc., but I don't think it tells us how to address it. If we have an issue, we can always open a support ticket.

I find pfSense easy to use and configure. We have a high-availability pair, so if one has issues, it will failover to the other automatically. Overall, it's been pretty easy to build VPN tunnels and functions like that.

I don't think pfSense is as good about monitoring as it could be. There are logs, but they're kind of hard to get to. You need to send it to a log monitoring system. It's good about monitoring and learning this. You'll get an alert if there's an issue with the firewall itself, but it's not detecting security attacks. 

PfSense has the bare necessities essentially, but it isn't an advanced firewall that protects against layer 7 attacks or DDoS. It's not on the same level as Palo Alto, for instance. You can add some higher-level security features, but it doesn't do that out of the box. Maybe there's another functoin we can add to it, but it feels like it's not catching more advanced attacks.

We've used pfSense for around five years.

The stability has been great. We've rarely had any issues that have caused a failover. When we do, the failover has made it. I don't think we've experienced any real impact from it that caused any product issues. 

While we've added more IP addresses and traffic, there are some limits to its scalability. We've run into this before with graphical issues. We opened a ticket about that, and they said they found a bug that they were looking into. 

I think we're going to get close to reaching a limit with the mid-to-lower-end models at some point. The scalability is good but probably not great.

Their response has been excellent. Sometimes we've opened a ticket, and we've gotten a response back right, other times it took an hour or so. They're responsive now. 

In terms of the quality of their answers, they have been good to great. 

Positive

At previous companies,  I have worked with Cisco and Palo Alto firewalls. Palo Alto is probably a better firewall because it does more blocking. It's also quite a bit more expensive. For what you get, a Netgate pfSense solution is a highly cost-effective firewall.

It was in place when I joined the company, so I wasn't involved in the deployment. It requires some maintenance, like adding new firewall rules or VPN connections. We also upgrade it once or twice a year. 

Including the support costs and the hardware, I think pfSense is reasonably priced. It's very affordable. The total cost of ownership is favorable. We've had a hardware device that lasted over five years, and they're still doing well. We're able to buy at least software support for them.

I rate Netgate pfSense seven out of 10. If you have an enterprise environment, I recommend having two for high availability. Make sure you purchase and keep up with the software support in case there are any issues. Those are the two biggest things that helped us out. 

I use Netgate pfSense in my home lab and company. I wanted to learn more about networking so I swapped my ISP router with Netgate pfSense.

Netgate pfSense is a flexible solution. Netgate has its appliances but if I want to use pfSense somewhere else, I can install it into a virtual machine or on my hardware.

I would rate the ease of adding features to Netgate pfSense eight out of ten.

Netgate pfSense has improved the traffic visibility of the devices we are monitoring. Netgate pfSense has also taught me a lot about networking because I got to use an enterprise-grade firewall.

pfSense Plus helps minimize downtime thanks to its ZFS snapshotting feature. This means if we misconfigure something, we can quickly restore our system to a previous working state, reducing downtime.

Both pfSense Plus and the community edition provide visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions.

Netgate pfSense has provided a reduction in downtime of 30 percent thanks to its user-friendly configuration process.

The most valuable features of Netgate pfSense are the ease of use and GUI. 

pfSense's dashboard offers basic monitoring, but it lacks centralized management for multiple PSM devices and a unified event interface for various services. Ideally, I'd like a management interface that can handle multiple PSMs, even if they're in different locations. This interface should provide at least status information and basic management features.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for three years.

I would rate the stability of Netgate pfSense nine out of ten. While I did encounter some issues earlier on, they have all since been resolved. 

Netgate pfSense is scalable. While we haven't used features like the rack-mounted version or maxed out its capabilities, the system is easily scalable. Upgrading to a more powerful model is simple - just export our settings and import them to the new device.

I had to use the technical support twice and they were extremely quick to respond and deal with my issues.

Positive

While I previously switched from UniFi to pfSense for its wider range of features, the gap between them has narrowed somewhat. However, pfSense remains a more enterprise-focused option, allowing for granular control over specific network elements useful in complex environments. UniFi, on the other hand, offers a less detailed view.

While the initial setup was mostly straightforward, some specific configurations proved challenging and lacked intuitiveness. To address these, I consulted YouTube videos and Netgate's documentation.

I would rate the ease of the setup process a seven out of ten.

Installing pfSense took a full day.

I implemented pfSense myself.

pfSense has definitely paid off for me. It's become a rock-solid foundation for my network. Since the memory leak fixes, it's been incredibly stable and requires minimal maintenance.

While pfSense hardware from Netgate might have a higher upfront cost, I've had very little trouble with it. Plus, buying from them directly helps fund the software's development, making it a worthwhile investment in my eyes.

pfSense offers a reasonable total cost of ownership for me. Since I primarily use it at home, I don't need additional features or paid support. However, compared to commercial options like SonicWall, even support costs seem affordable. It's worth noting that advanced features like Suricato or Snort require additional subscriptions for business use, but overall, pfSense remains a cost-effective solution.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

pfSense handles both my home lab, suitable for a small household, and our company's branch office with roughly 150 on-site users and 50 remote VPN connections. It also facilitates a site-to-site VPN connection between this branch and our main New York office.

pfSense is low-maintenance. While regular updates are important, I typically won't need to perform much additional maintenance beyond occasional logins to check the dashboard and install those updates.

pfSense is a stable and feature-rich firewall, but it lacks  Layer 7 application filtering, which means you can't easily block specific applications. While I haven't personally needed this feature, it's a known gap in pfSense's functionality.

I recommend pfSense overall to others.

I work for a small business. We have a number of different remote sites, so I use the solution as my primary firewall. I use it as a way for my remote sites to connect back to the main office via VPN.

The VPN features are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

It's pretty flexible. It does everything I need it to do. My use cases are somewhat limited.

I do like how easy it is to restore if you lose a router. I lost a firewall over the weekend at one of my remote sites. As of right now, I'm setting up a new piece of hardware and restoring it. It couldn't be more simple.

There are features in pfSense that help me to prevent data loss. It's relatively easy for me to back up what I need. I've created a pretty simple script that I run on a computer inside of my network that reaches out to all of the different pfSense firewalls that I use. It grabs a config file. And that's pretty simple. It's a script that runs daily. I could probably even run it weekly. It simply reaches out and grabs these things and backs them up. Data loss is not something that I'm really concerned about as long as I have a good backup, which I do, and I check it regularly.

It’s easy to add features to pfSense and to configure them. I don't add a lot to pfSense with regard to the package manager that it comes with. That said, the packages that I do use are easy to install, easy to update, and easy to configure.

I witnessed the benefits of pfSense immediately. I have what I consider an enterprise-class firewall and routing stack at a pretty reasonable price.

pfSense gives you a single pane of glass type of management. You can see pretty much most things inside of the firewall, everything from bandwidth charts to DHCP leases - anything you've set up with regards to DNS. It's got pretty good logging features. I wind up sending most of the Syslog information from pfSense to third-party logging software. That’s why I'm not really using it to peer through logs. However, to do quick checks, I'll use it. The UI is pretty similar to Netgate. It makes a lot of sense.

pfSense provides features that help minimize downtime. The high availability configuration allows me to mitigate downtime. I've worked with their deployment team to set that up and also set up the LAN. Regardless of whether or not I lose a firewall or an Internet connection, my connection to the Internet remains pretty resilient.

The visibility in pfSense helps optimize performance. I'm primarily using it to see how our bandwidth is being utilized. Outside of that, I'm not using pfSense to visualize a ton of data. I offload pfSense data to third-party software that I use to visualize things that are happening on my network. If I just pop in and take a quick glance at what might be going on in my network, it's sufficient.

I'm hard-pressed to think of a needed additional feature. It would be nice to see which packages are officially from pfSense and which are from a third party in the package manager.

I've been using the solution for more than a decade. 

The stability is rock solid. 

I haven't really had to scale my deployment. My deployment was for an in-place network. My network hasn't changed much as I've redeployed the pfSense over the years.

The speed of response is good. It was well within the SLA. 

They were incredibly helpful. They answered follow-up questions in a timely manner. I was very pleased. I have had to use it very minimally. However, I was very pleased with how it worked.

Positive

I may have used something different a decade ago. Since then, I've been using pfSense. We're a small business. I do have some Cisco hardware, however, I'm not using it on my edge network. It's mostly just for switching.

I typically buy the hardware myself for the installation. I have one or two pfSense appliances. One is sitting on a rack as a backup unit in case I need it. I have a couple in the field. At the end of the day, if I'm going to buy the appliance, I get a year or two of CE. I'd much rather just buy the hardware myself and purchase a CE or get a Plus license.

It's incredibly easy to deploy. Even for a new engineer, it would be pretty simple. 

I am in the process of restoring one. It took me 20 minutes to flash the image to a thumb drive, install it on the device, boot the device, restore the configuration backup, and have it up and running. I'm familiar with the hardware that I purchased, and I take and test good backups. That said, the process is incredibly easy. It takes very little time to deploy something that has failed. 

With regard to a new setup, it's impossible for me to answer broadly; however, even then, it's not a long time. It just depends on how sophisticated a given user's network is.

There is very little maintenance outside of updating the software. 

I deployed devices to our remote sites myself. I used Netgate Professional Services to help deploy a high availability stack at our main office, and they were outstanding to work with.

Anybody not using it, at least at the small or medium business level, is crazy. There's a significant return on investment. We're getting a pretty state-of-the-art device that runs OpenVPN and some other VPN software. It's not Cisco. It's not Juniper or any of the others out there. However, I keep my ear to the ground with regard to vulnerabilities generally out there, and it seems like there are far more vulnerabilities that you hear about day-to-day in their competitors than in their software. At the enterprise level, there may be some more sophisticated and purpose-built solutions. That said, pfSense meets all of my needs. I can't imagine it not meeting the needs of anybody in a business my size and slightly bigger or slightly smaller.

The licensing is fair. 

I'm a pfSense customer.

There are two versions of pfSense. The plus version, which is paid, and the community edition, which is free. I primarily use plus.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I use pfSense as a firewall for a university client with 10,000 to 12,000 users. I'm a consultant to the client, and they haven't introduced the product to their IT team. They are only starting to train themselves and use it to secure their environment from end to end. 

One of the biggest benefits is cost savings. It has reduced operating costs compared to Sophos by more than 50 percent. PfSense Plus helped us minimize downtime. I can configure it for high availability, and the machines are simple and reliable. The Netgear devices work well. They stay up. I built a cluster, and they work seamlessly. 

I like how affordable and flexible pfSense is. I can achieve the protection I need in a flexible manner. I enjoy using pfSense. It's effective and solid.

Two key areas need improvement: the traffic profile and better centralized management. It would be great if we could have a single pane of glass for managing multiple appliances running in different locations. Sophos has much better centralized management, but you're paying an arm and a leg for it.

The management is good, but it's quite basic. If I have multiple instances deployed, I can't manage the information like I would when I use something like Sophos Central to manage multiple devices in different locations. 

The portal is still not well-tuned. There are still issues regarding implementation and its effectiveness. But besides that, everything else is great, from the purchase to implementation, setup, etc. Only the portal needs a lot of work.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for stability.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for scalability. It's highly scalable. 

I have not contacted Netgate support yet, but I've heard that the technical support is excellent. I can't afford it.

We were using Sophos but switched due to the price. I was looking for a more affordable firewall solution, which brought me to pfSense. I sought something to replace our existing device. We needed something to do the same thing I was doing, including firewall, IPS, etc., but that wouldn't cost me as much as Sophos did.

PfSense isn't very easy, but if you know what you're doing and know what you're looking for, you can get it done. It's technical compared to Sophos. It's not difficult. It's just more technical.

PfSense was straightforward. The infrastructure is complex, but the implementation was straightforward for me. Maybe that's because I've had years of experience in IT infrastructure deployment. 

The deployment time depends on the features you want to implement. It took me about a week. The initial setup took less than two hours, but it took me about a week to finish the tune-up. I mostly deployed it by myself. I just looked up online videos from experts and understood what to do next. After deployment, it requires the occasional firmware update. That's it.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for affordability. The company did the price review of Sophos and just took it out of the wall. Most of our clients have recommended Netgate. The total cost of ownership is excellent. It makes a lot of sense for SMEs. I pay a little bit on top. The Netgate infrastructure is much easier to approach. 

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. I recommend it to others. It's affordable and not that difficult to set up or manage. You need to be certified to use Sophos, but we don't need any specific certifications to own or manage pfSense.

We use our Netgate appliance in our office and resell Netgate appliances and services.

We realized the benefits of pfSense immediately. For example, we needed to connect two ISP connections to use them simultaneously in the office without separating the network. We immediately saw the benefit upon installation. Otherwise, we would have two different connection lines and need to separate the users between the two networks. With pfSense, we could get that benefit instantly. 

Some applications also deliver benefits over time in addition to the immediate benefit on the routing side of an installation. Eventually, you will see other benefits in creating certain policies that apply to users, such as the firewall's filtering capabilities.

In terms of data loss, the ability to create policies that would be a step toward intrusion prevention or malware blocking would be a secondary benefit. As I understand, pfSense per se is Netgate and we have a data loss feature in itself. As a layer of protection, then that creates a layer of protection against data loss.

PfSense offers single-pane-of-glass management. When you log into the system, you immediately see this dashboard, which shows the resources and utilization of the pfSense device. The most important information is in that dashboard. In our case, we have a standby monitor where IT support would look at it. If something is created there, that gives them an idea of how that something is set up. 

The pfSense Plus edition has features that prevent downtime, such as load balancing. We can automatically route traffic to another ISP should the primary or the secondary be down. It's the most important feature for some of our clients. It prevents downtime because it will automatically route to the active connection. 

We have to go through a step that gives you visibility into certain alarms that indicate a possible security issue. That feature provides visibility into potential network security issues. We run servers with applications that are critical to office operations. When monitoring the network, the server is the priority.  Having clear protection ensures productivity because sometimes issues inside the application impact the use inside the office and those outside the office. PfSense is able to add a layer of protection to these application servers.

The most valuable feature is the routing capability. We're primarily using the appliance as a router to provide DNS and multi-WAN routing. Flexibility is also critical. The solution provides flexibility in terms of creating firewall rules. It's extensive, which means you can create several rules with different elements involving firewall policies.

It's easy to add features to pfSense. When I started, I didn't have a networking background, but I was able to follow the materials and learn through hands-on practice. The interface is easy to navigate and understandable.

The intrusion protection system is provided by a third-party provider that's verified by pfSense. It would be best to have an option for IPS because when you deploy pfSense to a SOC, you have to subscribe to another IPS provider.  The IPS should be a default feature. On the other hand, that's also the benefit of pfSense because you can also acquire another IPS solution. 

We started using Netgate in 2016, so we have used it for almost nine years.

I can only think of one instance where stability would be a problem, and that's the power supply. We have tested the hardware for a single power supply, so if it was deployed in a location where the power supply is unstable and without the proper UPS, then it will cause problems. That is not due to pfSense per se. It requires a redundant power supply on the end user side to provide sufficient UPS or some sort of backup. On the software side, I don't recall a major incident where the software got corrupted.

Sometimes, it could get corrupted in the course of maintenance. For example, if the logs are not cleared, and the storage becomes full over time. 

The hardware is not scalable. Normally, we ask clients to project where they will be in two or three years and advise them to buy a model that fits their requirements. If you already have fixed hardware but you haven't factored in the number of users, you will hit a wall. PfSense has some scalability, but it depends on your hardware. 

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. When you acquire Netgate hardware, you gain access to online support. We've had some issues that couldn't be resolved, so we had to raise a ticket to online support. The feedback was quick, and we didn't have any major issues left unresolved because the online support was effective.

Positive

We deployed certain prescribed network equipment, like the Fortinet firewall. We started using pfSense Community Edition because it's free and highly available, but we saw the benefit of the commercial version, which is more stable, so we decided to upgrade to that. 

When we started, we were already using the community version. It took some time because we have some IT personnel. Sometimes, when we have just hired an IT staff member, and we introduce them to pfSense, I see that they can easily adapt or understand the features and how to manage the firewall. They can install the community version and play with it. The installation is easy and staff can learn it hands-on.

We deployed it in-house, but when we hire some IT support, we require them to have some exposure to pfSense. The pfSense community edition is pretty popular, so we don't have much use for consultants. We provide the service because we understand pfSense.

PfSense is easy to maintain. You only need to modify the configuration when there are additions to the network or you need to change the firewall rules. Other than that, the features and systems don't require much maintenance. 

In the Philippines, most users are small or medium-sized enterprises. Small businesses also need a level of protection, so sometimes, what they need is basic protection. For example, they must protect their ports so they cannot be scanned from outside and layered protection and filtering. They would like something without a recurring cost, which pfSense can provide for basic features. 

PfSense offers solid value for small and medium enterprises, so it's highly applicable. It serves our purpose even in our use case. We have certain critical applications that must be protected, and the pricing is good for us. The good thing about pfSense is that it supports layer three or IPSec VPN at no additional cost. That in itself is a good feature for small and medium enterprises, and we can deploy VPN at no additional cost. We can deploy other applications, adding a layer of VPN without much expense.

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. 

I've set up Netgate pfSense for my friend's law practice for his access to VPN after the AT&T service dropped their FortiGate. It was so much easier to use. The VPN and VLAN support I needed that Meraki and AT&T tried to give me was crap. I also use Netgate pfSense at home as my router or office network.

I also have the tool set up for a remote person in Texas for a site-to-site VPN when she needs it to do some work. I've currently got three of them that I use personally and professionally.

I love the solution's flexibility. You can buy their hardware, get support, and use other people's hardware. Netgate is constantly releasing patches and updates, which is nice. There is also tons of free material on the web and on YouTube on how to set it up.

We saw the benefits of Netgate pfSense within weeks of deploying it because it gave me the ability to segment my network quickly. It was pretty straightforward and much easier than some of the competitors out there.

Netgate pfSense gives me a single pane of glass management. It gives me everything I need with regard to the firewall.

Netgate pfSense Plus provides features that help us minimize downtime. The ability to do high availability and failover of LAN links is a nice feature.

The visibility that pfSense Plus provides helps us optimize performance. I can see traffic analysis and tune it a little better.

I'd say the solution's total cost of ownership will replace itself within a year. The stability of being able to download a different package if someone needs it has made my life a lot easier.

Some of the functions are not menu-driven. You have to know to click here, then go over to this setting and click here. 

It would be nice if the solution had a wizard for some of the complex functions. When trying to walk people through something, I have to look at the video or read their document.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for three years.

I haven't had any stability issues with Netgate pfSense. The tool might get bogged down if I add more things. I still reboot mine once a month. Other than that, I haven't had any crashes.

It'd be nice if I could add memory to their appliances to improve their performance. Scalability, to me, is really another hardware device. I haven't seen an option to change the hardware.

The solution's technical support team is very responsive. Regarding the quality of their answers, the support team is excellent and very knowledgeable.

Positive

We had the FortiGate firewall that AT&T was providing, which they discontinued. Unfortunately, their replacement was less compatible than the FortiGate, so we jumped to Netgate pfSense. We were doing managed services at AT&T. I dumped their managed service at my firewall because Netgate pfSense was so easy to use.

Since I've been in IT for years, the solution's initial setup is simple for me. If you have a device that doesn't have a keyboard and you're using a serial console, it's a little bit kludgy on what to do. You can figure it out if you read the documents ahead of time.

Deploying the solution for my home use took me about a day and a half. It was all about design and learning all the functions. Deploying the solution for the business took me about two weeks because I had to figure out all the rules. Software-wise, it was easy, but we had to figure out what the customer wanted.

The solution's pricing is comparable to other products. The basic plan provides the support I need.

Depending on what you're trying to do, adding and configuring features to Netgate pfSense is somewhere in the middle between easy and difficult. Some things are really simple, while others are difficult.

Remembering everything you have to do is challenging because sometimes you have to click somewhere, and then you don't remember where you clicked. So, it'd be nice if everything was better tied together.

I initially started with the free version on third-party hardware, and then they discontinued it, so I just bought the appliance.

I prefer to do manual updates myself, but the solution lets me know if there's an update. I regularly do firmware updates when they are available.

The solution provides great support, articles, and a lot of documents.

New users should document what they want to do upfront and then try to look at all the documents on the Netgate site. My biggest advice would be not to try to do it cold. If you're going to use the VLANs, figure out all that information for your routing. If you don't have a document, you won't be able to implement it very easily.

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

We use pfSense for firewall, ad-blocking, and IPS functions. We have two pfSense instances on Dell hardware, and one exclusively does IPS/IDS. I have the firewall features turned off on that. The other use case is for the firewall features, reporting, and VPN.

The first benefit is that pfSense offers an affordable firewall solution. It's open source and available on any platform. If you wanted to pull an old machine out of your garage, you could set up a pretty decent pfSense installation. Having learned a little more about pfSense and some of the additional packages that can be bolted onto pfSense, I've used it now for quite a few different things.

I haven't had any particular instances where I felt I was under attack or the firewall was somehow inadequate. I feel very comfortable that this will do everything to protect data. The initial deployment was positive, and we started seeing the benefits within a couple of hours.

The pfSense Plus has vetted rules and software releases from Netgate. Having that extra layer of accountability from Netgate with the Plus features is a positive. 

I like the VPN features. We use WireGuard, which is part of the pfSense package. That was easy to set up, so I could connect to other customer sites seamlessly. Is there such a thing as being too flexible? It's a highly flexible platform, especially regarding support for third-party packages. It's almost like you're overfilling your grocery cart, and items are all falling on the floor. You can add too much to it. 

The single pane of glass management could be better. For example, it relies on several additional packages to provide some of the features advertised as part of its capabilities, but those packages are not visible directly through the initial pfSense dashboard. 

It is easy to add features, but configuring them takes a lot of knowledge. I would like to see an additional wizard added to pfSense when you add some of their other packages. You can add a package from pfSense to do a particular task, but you need to be a product expert or willing to spend time on the Internet for hours and hours to figure out how to configure some of those features correctly. 

We have used pfSense for about one year.

We haven't experienced any crashes or performance issues. I have pfSense loaded up with third-party packages, and it's just rock solid.

We're a small shop, so I don't have much experience deploying it in bigger, better, faster scenarios. 

I rate Netgate support nine out of 10. They were very responsive. It took some getting used to because I always used phone support. I love phone support. I like talking to people, but the support level that I paid for was email. They were on it fairly quickly. It was a licensing issue, and they told me exactly what the problem was within 24 hours.

Positive

I've used Cisco firewalls before and found them very complicated. You don't know what you're doing, and it's dedicated hardware. I've used some other common off-the-shelf products, such as Netgear and Linksys. I thought pfSense was the best fit.

The initial deployment of the pfSense firewall is easy. It took nearly four hours, including the additional configuration tweaks. We're a small environment, so it was pretty straightforward

After deployment, it doesn't require much maintenance. It's essentially fire and forget. I chose to do the updates manually, but you can set it to update automatically. I should note that I chose Dell platforms to run pfSense because there's a lot of industry knowledge regarding the combination of Dell and pfSense. Anyone deploying some no-name hardware from other companies will probably run into some trouble.

PfSense is affordable. I appreciate that it's based on a support requirement instead of bandwidth or users. We're pretty small, so we don't touch many of those levels that they might have. 

Since I'm using my own hardware instead of a Netgate appliance, this is the most bang for your buck you can deploy. I pay for the Plus and feel the benefits behind the software and configurations. The average user might be fine with the community edition, but I wouldn't go that route for a production environment. I think this is a cost-effective solution. I can amend it to manipulate the various hardware configurations without much pushback from Netgate. 

I rate Netgate pfSense nine out of 10. I highly recommend it. It isn't a perfect solution. It's a little difficult to configure. If you can afford it, I would pay for the phone support.

We're using our offices including the main endpoint VPN connections from the main office to our seller offices.

The ability to load third-party apps, et cetera,  into the firewall is pretty useful for a commercial-grade router and file, which is very customizable.

Out of the box, it's about 90% plug-and-play. The last piece, you do need to know how you're setting the firewall up for your environment. It varies on what you're trying to do with it. It can be really easy or difficult, depending on your knowledge base for the application.

We were able to witness the benefits of the product pretty much immediately.

Once you've navigated around it, it's pretty self-explanatory as to where to go. Compared to other products out there, it's pretty easy.

We do have a sort of single pane of glass for management purposes. You do have to dig around. If we had, for example, ten pfSense routers deployed, it would be nice to have one console where you could see all ten devices, update them, and keep them all central. A management portal would be very nice.

I've been using the solution for seven years. 

The solution is very stable. Issues are rare unless a box gets hit with a power surge or something. 

I found the solution very scalable. I can load multiple VMs on it and add a second port onto it. Depending on your deployment, it is very scalable. 

I've only contacted support for corrupted systems. If the unit loses power and comes back on every once in a while, the file system gets corrupted, or it won't boot the device, and you have to reimage the whole thing, in those instances, I've had to reach out to them. They are pretty quick. I can get help within an hour even with just the free version. I imagine the paid version has good support. 

Positive

We used to use Ubiquiti, which was not a great solution. We also used something previously to that. Their interface was very clunky. You'd have to go through multiple different routes to get to the same thing that pfSense has on a single drop-down. pfSense has a more user-friendly setup. Plus, it has CLI integration, which is great. You can make configurations in the command prompt too, which is a lot easier.

To me, the setup is fairly easy. That said, I already knew what I was doing to set it up. If I were coming fresh out into the network and environment, I'd never switch one of the firewalls; there may be a challenge to go through and figure out what the router can do to make the deployment work. When you get the box, you plug it in. There are a lot of features that are ported in that don't come pre-installed. However, they have a complete database listed in their browser. You just go down and pick what services you need. If you don't know what is there, it may take you a while to figure out what the unit is capable of. 

There is no maintenance beyond occasional updates. They don't push those out too often. However, when they do come out, you have to go through them one by one to make sure the update is successful. It would be easier if you could do everything all at once and be done with it.

How long it takes to deploy varies as each office is different. If I'm building three or four VLANs, that's going to take time. In my role, I built one base configuration that contains the VLANs IP servers that I want to use. I've extracted that as a file that I can modify and push to different boxes. So if I get 100 2100 or 4100, it doesn't matter. All I have to do is change the interface names and push it back to the box. So to me, it's pretty fast, and it already has my settings ready to go.

I handled the initial setup myself. 

I use the community version. For configurations and troubleshooting, you do need to pay. I'm not sure what the pricing is for Plus.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

I'm a customer and end-user.