Netgate pfSense Reviews

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 are a reseller. We resell the product to our customers as we are an MSP. We use it for various different verticals, from manufacturing to schools to typical offices. That is mainly the use of this solution.

There are a lot of limitations with competitors like WatchGuard and SonicWall where there are a lot of costs for licenses to utilize their products. We felt that by going to pfSense, we have a little bit more freedom. We can use certain features without having to pay exorbitant costs for licensing. It is better for the small to medium-sized customers.

They are the most flexible, for sure. In my experience, it is quite easy to add features to pfSense and configure them. There is a lot of support from the local community. Because it is an open-community-built platform, there is a lot of support out there. Adding features and configuring them seems to be quite simple from my experience so far.

There is an overall performance increase. The hardware is much more performance-driven. The constant upgrades certainly make it easier to keep up with the evolving environment. The community-driven platform certainly helps to ensure that things are kept current.

pfSense gives us a single pane of glass management. There is a user interface and also the command line. The user interface is very friendly and easy to navigate. The single pane of glass management certainly increases productivity. The ability to look at one single pane of glass, add different widgets, and see things at a glance certainly helps to cut down the time of looking for certain statuses or things like that. It makes things more efficient.

We deal with pfSense Plus in a few cases. It can help minimize downtime. We have not experienced it in any sort of live environment, but I am confident that it would.

pfSense Plus provides visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions.

It optimizes performance, and in most cases, it affects operations and makes things more efficient. Efficiency means money.

The ability to utilize the features instead of having to pay a license fee for every single thing that you want to use on a firewall is valuable. A lot of other companies give you a firewall out of the box that has very basic functionality, whereas pfSense gives you all the good features, and if you want to have more advanced features, you can pay a fee. You are able to use a lot of the features that you cannot use on other products. That is the best thing.

It is very good from a troubleshooting perspective. Things like logging are very good. We have been using these firewalls with filtering very successfully, and VPN has been very successful on them. We have not had any issues with that.

One thing that stuck out to me was the move to use plastic chassis on the Netgate devices or products. They are moving away from using metal chassis, and I find that the plastic seems to get hotter than the metal. Other than that, they are such great devices. They always seem to have all the cool things and bells and whistles.

One thing I would like to see Netgate do is to have a cloud-based management portal, similar to SonicWall, WatchGuard, Ubiquiti, etc. With all these platforms, you create an account, and you have a way to cloud-manage these products. Currently, one of the challenges that we face is not being able to manage those things from a centralized platform. It has always been one thing I have dreamt of for Netgate. That is the only place where it falls short. Apart from that, they are far superior in building, keeping up with the times, and keeping things current.

It has been probably eight or nine years.

A couple of times we have had some strange issues that have been unexplainable, but overall, it is 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.

They have been fantastic. I have never had an issue, and it has always been very good. They are a highly intelligent and very resourceful team. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Positive

We have used everything, such as Cisco, SonicWall, and WatchGuard. You name the flavor. We have used them all, and Netgate is definitely a much better product than those. It also depends on the use cases. 

It has been very straightforward to very complex. We have set up entire data centers run by Netgate devices to small offices using a 2100. We have gone from the most complex to the least complex. We have seen everything in between.

Its deployment is a matter of hours. Our clients are small to medium size. We have about ten people working with pfSense.

It requires general maintenance. We have to keep up with firmware and updates. From a physical perspective, there is no maintenance.

It is very cost-effective. There is 100% ROI.

They are on the higher end, but you do not get stuck with spending thousands of dollars every year. You do not have recurring license costs to have people use a simple feature like VPN. That makes it more cost-effective in the long term. There is a very good price point. No one ever complained, and I have not ever thought that they were overpriced. That is for sure.

If you are looking to deploy a product that is reliable and high-performing and that is going to be cost-effective for yourself or your customer in the long term, you are doing the right thing by looking at Netgate.

I would rate Netgate pfSense a ten out of ten.

One of our clients operates multiple branches, and we've implemented a solution involving feature and IP address tunnels connecting these branches. The main branch serves as the hub, housing the Central PBX and providing services to the other branches.

We use pfSense to handle VPN connections, extending to remote workers in our various branches as well.

The feature I find most valuable for fulfilling network security requirements is pfBlockerNG. It offers exceptional visibility and filtering capabilities, without the need for dedicated hardware or recurring expenses. Unlike other solutions, pfBlockerNG operates seamlessly and continuously without additional costs or maintenance concerns.

The traffic shaping and bandwidth management features of pfSense significantly enhance our network performance. The inclusion of a QoS wizard simplifies the process, eliminating the complexity often associated with configuring QoS on other platforms like Cisco routers. With pfSense, utilizing the wizard streamlines the setup process, making it accessible and effective for users without requiring an advanced understanding of networking intricacies.

There have been specific incidents where the reporting and monitoring tools of pfSense played a crucial role in identifying and resolving network issues. In one instance, we received complaints about internet connectivity problems affecting productivity across the business. Upon investigation, I discovered that the issue stemmed from excessive bandwidth consumption caused by multiple HD camera streams being watched simultaneously. Utilizing pfSense's reporting and monitoring tools, I quickly pinpointed the source of the problem and implemented measures to alleviate the network congestion. These tools are invaluable for identifying resource-intensive processes and resolving performance issues effectively.

The process of integrating pfSense with other tools and services has proven to be quite straightforward thus far. While there may be a slight learning curve at the outset, particularly for those less familiar with networking concepts, it becomes manageable with experience.

The most valuable feature, for instance, is the ease of migrating configurations between different Netgate devices housed in the same box. This capability simplifies troubleshooting, as it allows for faster identification of DNS discrepancies or any other issues compared to proprietary systems. With pfSense, network configurations adhere to standard practices, facilitating troubleshooting without the need for complex overlays or policies. The interface, prioritizes network principles, making it intuitive for those familiar with networking concepts to navigate and achieve desired outcomes efficiently.

It lacks a solution for SD-WAN integration. I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial. Partnering with trusted antivirus providers such as Bitdefender or Sophos as an add-on feature could enhance the antivirus capabilities of pfSense. Incorporating a centralized management console for easier administration would be a valuable addition.

I have been working with it for over five years.

The stability of pfSense is exceptional. I've only encountered one instance of hardware failure, which was due to an electrical issue. Otherwise, all other deployments have been reliable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The scalability of pfSense is impressive. I've witnessed its capabilities firsthand, especially when it was deployed in environments supporting up to seven thousand employees. I would rate it nine out of ten. Currently, pfSense is our top recommendation for clients, tailored to their budget and specific requirements. Depending on the client's needs, such as compliance with PCI or HIPAA regulations, we may suggest models that offer corresponding features and evaluations of network security. This flexibility allows us to cater to clients with varying compliance needs, ensuring they receive suitable recommendations.

In terms of technical support, I primarily rely on the forums whenever I have a question or need technical information. I've found that the answers I seek are often readily available there. While pfSense does offer paid support packages, I haven't had the opportunity to utilize them yet.

The main difference between Fortinet and pfSense lies in their integration with different vendors. While pfSense offers integration with multiple commercial antivirus solutions, Fortinet primarily provides its own antivirus offering. However, the effectiveness of the antivirus provided by pfSense may not be as high as some other options available in the market. In terms of cost, pfSense offers a one-time payment for cloud services, providing continuous service without ongoing fees. On the other hand, Fortinet's pricing structure may seem appealing initially, but if you wait until close to the license expiration date, the renewal cost significantly increases, which could result in unexpectedly high expenses.

The initial setup was straightforward.

To set up pfSense, you start by configuring firewall rules to allow the necessary traffic. Once that's done, you can explore and download additional security packages from the package manager to enhance your environment's security. The initial setup is quick, typically taking around ten minutes for a basic configuration. However, if you're integrating features like pfBlockerNG, it may take a bit longer as you need to ensure you're not inadvertently blocking any essential services. Despite this, the task can be managed by a single person, such as an IT manager.

Maintenance tasks, such as checking logs and ensuring updates are running smoothly, are typically handled by two designated individuals. They connect to the firewall periodically to perform these checks. While we do have a management console, it's not fully integrated with the pfSense Manager (PSM) solution. Having a dedicated management console that allows remote management of all wireless devices would be ideal, as it would streamline the process of making changes across multiple devices.

The price point is highly competitive. The cost varies depending on the license type, such as licenses for eight to five support or twenty-four seven support. Opting for twenty-four-seven support significantly increases the price, reaching around ten thousand to thirteen hundred dollars. I would rate it four out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

We use pfSense as our router and firewall on several sites.

We implemented the pfSense open platform because we wanted to move away from SonicWall.

We use the community edition of the software and purchase the Netgate router separately. I used white boxes initially, but now I'm also using the Netgate hardware. It's a great product.

The pfSense offers exceptional flexibility, far surpassing SonicaWall's capabilities. Its intuitive interface, complete with a better layout of management screens, makes it a breeze to use. While Cisco routers may be overkill for many applications, pfSense performs well.

Using pfSense is easy. It has intuitive management screens. And if I ever run into a blockade, I pay for the technician annually. I am confident in sticking with that platform. It's always worked for me. It's tried and true.

I hired a seasoned professional with extensive experience using pfSense on white boxes for years, specifically the community edition. His mastery of configuration was evident, and I was impressed by his expertise. After he walked me through several scenarios, I was convinced of the benefits of the Netgate product and began replacing my aging SonicWall devices with it, drawn to the ease of use that Netgate offered.

Netgate pfSense provides a single-pane-of-glass to manage all our firewall needs.

It's relatively straightforward for a novice to deploy pfSense, likely easier than SonicWall. However, I've used SonicWall extensively and am gradually phasing them out. While SonicWall is a solid product, pfSense is remarkably easy to set up.

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

One thing that has always bothered me is that when I buy an appliance, there are two tiers of support: email-only and a premium tier, like TAC, that allows me to speak to someone on the phone. If I'm purchasing their hardware, I should have phone support for a certain period, even at the lower price point. My only complaint is that I need phone support, not just email, because if there's a support issue, I don't have time to wait for an email response. I need to speak to someone immediately. Therefore, I think I should receive TAC support for the Netgate pfSense for at least the first year after purchasing the hardware.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for six years.

I have never experienced any stability issues with pfSense.

To scale we need to add a unit.

I had email support for about a week before calling Netgate to request telephone support. I explained that if I'm calling for assistance, I'm likely experiencing an urgent issue and need immediate help. I decided to pay $699 or so for annual telephone support, which has been excellent. The support is prompt and effective, making it well worth the investment.

Positive

I previously used SonicWall but migrated to pfSense because it is a more intuitive router and firewall.

Compared to Cisco, Netgate is definitively the product that is better for my use case. I know there's a want in the industry for Cisco devices. However, in the hotel vertical, I just don't need it, nor do I need to pay for the expertise in configuration of that platform.  

The first time I deployed a pfSense, a seasoned professional guided me through the process, making it incredibly easy to complete.

Netgate pfSense is fairly priced. It's probably the most powerful router firewall I've come across.

The total cost of ownership of pfSense is reasonable, considering the value it provides. I appreciate the VPN, router, and firewall functionality it offers, which is essential for my business operations. In fact, the ongoing costs associated with pfSense do not significantly exceed the initial purchase price.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

Other than firmware updates, pfSense requires minimal maintenance. I update the firmware every two to three months for routine maintenance or immediately if a security vulnerability is discovered.

For a new user, I would recommend TAC support. I've spoken with others in my industry who have had positive experiences with TAC, particularly compared to email support. They've reported being up and running within five minutes of contacting TAC. Additionally, problem resolution is also swift and effective. So, I highly recommend new users invest in TAC support. It's well worth the money.

We deploy the pfSense firewall to our customers' networks.

The solution provides customers with reliability and additional security.

The interface is very good. The configuration options are excellent. All of its capabilities are quite useful. It's more capable than what we need it for. I like having the ability to have additional capabilities compared to others.

pfSense's flexibility is great. I would rate it pretty high based on that.

We immediately witnessed the benefits of pfSense.

The IPS intrusion protection system helps prevent data loss. It works really well. It's a little bit manual process, however, it works really well overall.

pfSense provides high availability to help minimize downtime. They all have built-in high availability, which fails over to another box.

The solution provides visibility that enables users to make data-driven decisions. That said, that's a capability that we really don't need due to how small our customers are.

The visibility in pfSense helps to optimize performance. Just being able to see network traffic and the load on the firewall on the box, or the response times from packets going back and forth is helpful. There is a lot of visibility into network performance.

pfSense does not provide a single pane of glass type of management. That's one of the biggest downfalls. We take care of more than 60 customers, so it would be nice to have the ability to have all of the pfSense boxes that we deploy under one pane of glass so we can manage them centrally. 

I've used the solution for two years. 

I've had no issues with stability; I'd rate it ten out of ten. 

While we do not scale the solution, I can see it being very scalable. 

Technical support is of excellent quality, and they have fast response times. 

Positive

We've never used any alternative to pfSense.

We're buying the machines from Netgate. It's very easy to deploy. I'd rate the ease of implementation as eight out of ten. Even if someone didn't have much experience with pfSense, it would be pretty easy.

It's low maintenance; we may only need to worry about an occasional firmware update. 

I did not use an integrator or consultant during the implementation. I handled the process myself. 

The total cost of ownership is very good. It's low maintenance. Once you get it up and running, you really don't have to touch it. It's very favorable to have the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities.

The pricing is excellent. 

We're an end-user.

We use the pfSense Plus version. 

I'd rate pfSense nine out of ten.

New users should be aware that it is more complex than just a consumer-grade product. Users need to be prepared for a lot of features that they might not understand or know how to implement at first. Check your resources in preparation.

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.

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 it as a firewall within our public cloud infrastructure. We use it in particular for IPSec, VPN, and Reverse Proxying HTTP Traffic. We have deployed multiple pfSenses and most of them are configured as HA/Failover.

We wanted to secure traffic between our main office and multiple public cloud data centers and providers. We also wanted to have access to our cloud components via VPN.

We have multiple websites that are proxied via HAProxy and secured via Let’s Encrypt TLS Certificates (generated via the ACME Plugin).

We deploy across multiple virtual data centers that are in different physical locations. Multiple teams have their own deployment. One HA / Failover cluster is the entry point to our websites so there are millions of HTTP requests per month. We also have around 20 to 30 users (Dev and Ops) who use the VPN feature. Behind the pfSense firewalls, there are around 100+ servers and no end users.

We replaced a Sophos UTM 9 Failover Cluster with a pfSense Failover Cluster and we can now make config and certificate changes without downtime. Also, the TLS certificates are rotated automatically.

The performance optimization documentation has improved our organization. The base setup is great but with higher bandwidth, it is really hard to find good documentation on how to tweak the setup to get the most out of your connection.

pfSense sort of gives us a single pane of glass management. We use the same product multiple times so we only need to know one product but it also does not offer a single management platform for all deployments. Whether this is good or bad depends on the point of view. On the one hand, we need to manage multiple setups, but on the other hand, we have a clear separation of concerns and risk zones (if the user account on one system is breached not all systems are affected).

It is hard to pinpoint a specific feature that is the most valuable. I think the big community is a major benefit. Most problems we encounter were already encountered and mostly solved by someone else. Most of the components are open-source tools, so the error messages have hits on Google which makes debugging easier.

pfSense has Plugins and is open source so everybody can add features or improve the product. For example, HAProxy, ACME Plugin, Prometheus-node-exporter, Nmap, etc. I see it as a relatively flexible product. If something is not working via the WebUI, SSH or WebKVM is always there.

Most of the time it is very straightforward to use a feature or plugin, the documentation is great and has examples that are very helpful. If something is a bit tricky, pfSense luckily has a big community. 

Performance Optimization Documentation could use improvement. The base setup is great but with higher bandwidth, it is really hard to find good documentation on how to tweak the setup to get the most out of your connection.

We have been using pfSense for eight years. 

pfSense is a very stable solution. In all the years I had around three instabilities.

Two people handle the maintenance of all pfSense Firewalls.

It can be used in small to big deployments. If the bandwidth hits more than 10GBs or 20GBs you need to optimize it to get good results. I would also not recommend it in very big ISP deployments with TBs of traffic.

I have never used the support for any technical issue. The community forums and Google always were enough.

Positive

In one of our virtual data centers, we had a Sophos UTM 9 as failover but it had some very annoying problems (Let’s Encrypt TLS Cert generation or WAF config reloads resulted in a two-minute downtime).

The old installation was straightforward, but the new installer has some bugs and does not really work.

We implemented it ourselves. 

Previous deployments were done by a System Engineer and the current deployments are done by me (DevOps Engineer) and a System Engineer. It was a one-person job.

We have better uptimes and lower support costs in comparison to the Sophos firewall and we are also saving on licensing fees.

The licensing seems fair. We owned the TAC Lite License for some time. The problem was, that the license is bound to a device ID which does not really work well with VMs where this ID changes sometimes.

We use pfSense Community Edition as our firewall within our public cloud so we only pay for the VM and the traffic.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. It is very good but has some fields in which it can improve.

You need to have an interest in the topic and also (like any security product) it needs regular attention. But it is a reliable firewall and the combination of BSD and ZFS makes it pretty solid.