Comparison conclusions:
pfSense offers paid options for additional support and features (pfSense Plus), a wider range of features and a larger community, but might have a steeper learning curve.
OPNsense provides a clean interface and built-in security features, but its community and documentation are smaller
The summary above is based on 40 interviews we conducted with pfSense and OPNsense users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"This solution made it very easy to manage our bandwidth."
"Unified Threat Management (UTM) features."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is the simple configuration."
"The management console is pretty simple, so anyone who understands networking can initially deploy the solution."
"Our security improved from being able to put in rules and close off unwanted traffic."
"The SD-WAN is the most valuable feature."
"Whenever I need something, Fortinet improves and updates the software for me."
"You can create multiple Virtual Domains (VDOMs), which are treated as separate firewall instances."
"Firewall system for small, medium, and large data networks. It allows you to provide security to your environment: DMZ networks, LAN, WAN, etc."
"Improved service performance and availability through redundancy."
"There is good documentation with a fantastic community and enterprise support."
"Great extensibility of the platform."
"The gain in performance and security from configuring the VPN connections was significant."
"Creation of certificates and the facility to administer services are valuable features."
"The initial setup is easy."
"I use pfSense because it gives me the flexibility to greatly expand basic firewall features."
"The interface and the dashboard are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It's open source."
"What I like best about OPNsense is that, as a firewall, it's pretty good. I'm quite impressed with it. I had an excellent experience with OPNsense, which helped me achieve the targets I wanted."
"The technical support is very good."
"The initial implementation process is simple."
"The initial setup is easy. It only takes 15-30 minutes to deploy."
"I have found the solution has some great features overall, such as guest access capabilities, dashboards, and ease of use. There is plenty of documentation and support and it has the plugins that I needed."
"The solution has high availability."
"As far as wanting more scalability or things in the network diagram, it's going to cost you."
"MTBF: Hardware failure is more common when compared to SonicWall or Cisco ASA."
"They can do more tests before they release new versions because I would like to be more assured. We had some experiences where they release something new and great, but some of the old features are disabled or they don't work well, which impacts the product satisfaction. The manufacturer should be able to prove that everything works or not only that it might work. This is applicable to most of the other services, software, and hardware companies. They all should work on this. We cannot trust every new release, such as a beta release, on the first day. We wait for some comments on the forums and from other companies that we know. We always wait a few weeks before we use the updated version. They should also extend the VPN client application, especially for Linux versions. Currently, it has an application for Linux devices, but it doesn't work the way we want to connect to the VPN. They use only the old connection, not the new one. They have VPN client applications for Windows and Mac, but they can add more useful features to better manage the devices and monitor the current health of each device. Such features would be helpful for our company."
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve the integration with Active Directory. Additionally, I would like to have a Cloud Controller, such as they do in the Cisco Meraki solution."
"One area for improvement is the performance on bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"Fortinet doesn't provide multiple virtual firewalls which would facilitate end users and customers."
"Technical support needs to be improved."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"This solution is good for small businesses but it is not as stable as other competitors such as Fortinet."
"I expect a better interface with more log analysis because I create my own interface."
"Lacks instructional videos."
"The solution could be more user-friendly, and the graphical interface needs some work so that someone without an IT background can use the application. I would like the ability to manage the on-premise appliance from the cloud. When I'm not in the office, it would be great to connect to the pfSense server and administer the network remotely."
"The integration could be improved."
"One concern I have with Netgate pfSense is related to packet filtering. Specifically, issues can arise with certain functionalities like GP, and, at times, there may be bugs."
"pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly."
"Perhaps the documentation is not clear and because it is supported in the community there is no basic documentation."
"The only thing that I would like to see improved is the Insight or the NetFlow analysis part. It would be good to have the possibility to dig down on the Insight platform. Right now, we can easily do only a few analyses. If this page becomes more powerful, it surely will be a well-adopted platform."
"The interface isn't so friendly user. But we have some technicians here who are quite confident with this tool. OPNSense could maybe add sets of rules so it's simpler to manage different groups with particular needs."
"The interface needs to be simplified. It is not user-friendly."
"The logging could improve in OPNsense."
"The support for OPNsense is good because we have documents available on the internet. The support could improve a little."
"The reporting part could be better."
"The ability to set the VPN IP address would be a welcome addition."
"While they do have paid options that actually gives better features, for most of the clients, if they tend to take a paid option will instead opt for Fortinet."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while OPNsense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 36 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while OPNsense is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OPNsense writes "Robust network security and management offering a user-friendly interface, open-source flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, with challenges regarding initial setup and the absence of official support". Netgate pfSense is most compared with Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM, Cisco Secure Firewall and WatchGuard Firebox, whereas OPNsense is most compared with Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos UTM, IPFire and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Netgate pfSense vs. OPNsense 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.