We performed a comparison between Juniper vSRX and Netgate pfSense based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The usage in general is pretty good."
"Good load balancing feature."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of use."
"Customers are more inclined towards FortiGate because of application control, web filtering, and anti-spam features. The support from the FortiGate team is good, and price-wise, it is affordable."
"Easy to use support and licensing portal as well as activation process."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a stable solution."
"Their reliability and their policy of pre-shipping replacements when a unit has failed."
"The most valuable feature is the SSL VPN, as it allows us to connect and it separates this product from other firewalls."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"We like the solution’s protocol and its dashboard system."
"The product’s quality and performance are better than other vendors."
"One of Juniper vSRX's most valuable features is its integration with safety applications. It keeps the software secure from developers without relying on third-party solutions."
"The hardware is stable."
"The solution has good features."
"The technical support services are excellent."
"It is easy for me to go in and update settings, make changes, or add/remove rules or security."
"I'm the expert when it comes to Linux systems, however, with the pfSense, due to the web interface, the rest of the staff can actually make changes to it as required without me worrying about whether they've opened up ports incorrectly or not. The ease of use for non-expert staff is very good."
"The solution is very easy to use and has a very nice GUI."
"pfSense helped us during COVID-19 because we used OpenVPN to connect from home."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"I have found the most valuable features to be antivirus and malware protection."
"I had some outages in the network and we provide services for our company. We sell mobile credits. The terminal gets access to our own server inside the network and if one internet fails, then the other one is still up and we have a back-up link on the devices."
"It is effective. We have not had any problems."
"I have found the firewall portion for the blocking most valuable."
"If they had better integration with security products, such as Cisco ISE or Rapid Threat Containment, then it would be an improvement."
"I would like to see improvements in the support from Fortinet. Here in the Philippines, whenever we have problems with a Fortinet product, we mostly ask for support from distributors and resellers and not directly from Fortinet."
"There could be more integration between the logging and analytical platforms to make it more seamless and integrated."
"The support system could be improved."
"A couple of things I've seen that need improvement, especially in terms of a hard coding. The driver-level active moment really is out-of-the-box and we have to have contact the customer support and sometimes it is difficult to resolve."
"The performance and speed are aspects of the solution that could always be improved upon."
"The UI could be improved."
"The debugging and troubleshooting has room for improvement."
"It could use more tutorials."
"They could provide support for cloud deployments."
"Fortinet is more user friendly than Juniper. In terms of remote access, I actually prefer using Fortinet. It's much easier to configure."
"They really need to improve the GUI."
"I've talked to people that say Juniper now, as a device, can be a solution for a data center, but in the past, I have not seen this as being possible."
"Juniper vSRX is expensive."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to the GUI because it isn't very good."
"VPN access is an area that needs improvement."
"The GUI. There are TONS of plugins for pfSense, as such, if a user wants to add quite a bit of functionality, the GUI will feel a little congested."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"The usage reports can be better."
"Needs services on additional features, such as managing inventory and generating reports."
"The configuration of the solution is a bit difficult."
"Layer 7 advanced firewall features are not included in the solution."
"There is more demand for UTMs than a simple firewall. pfSense should support real-time features for handling the latest viruses and threats. It should support real-time checks and real-time status of threats. Some other vendors, such as Fortinet, already offer this type of capability. Such capability will be good for bringing pfSense at the same level as other solutions."
"The solution could improve by having centralized management and API support online."
Juniper vSRX is ranked 24th in Firewalls with 33 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Juniper vSRX is rated 7.8, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Juniper vSRX writes "Fast with good usability and fairly scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Juniper vSRX is most compared with Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Juniper vSRX vs. Netgate pfSense report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
