We performed a comparison between Netgate pfSense and Palo Alto Networks WildFire based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."We are a visual effects company, and there have been a number of high profile security issues in our industry. This has brought us to a higher standard of security, which our clients are very keen on these days."
"It enables our organization to become more productive. Also, it protects our NEtWare from viruses and malware."
"Easy to use support and licensing portal as well as activation process."
"The product offers very good security."
"This is a quality product with ok support, and it is better than the competition we've tried."
"It is a good source for firewall protection."
"This version is stable. I don't have any issues with this solution, in our environment, it works well."
"The solution is very easy to understand. It's not overly complex."
"pfSense helped us during COVID-19 because we used OpenVPN to connect from home."
"The flexibility of adding new kinds of services without spending any money can't be beaten."
"I have found pfSense to be stable."
"I especially like the VPN part. It works like a charm."
"The main features of this solution are customization and ease to use."
"It is easy to use and has integrity with other systems, such as proxies and quality of service."
"My technicians find the pfSense's web interface very useful. It is very easy to use. pfSense is very reliable and stable. We like the OpenVPN clients that can be deployed using pfSense very much."
"I like pfSense's reports and how I can control access to the policies on the firewall."
"The most valuable features of the solution are user-friendliness, price, good security, and cloud-related options."
"Detailed reporting on analysis of content. The inspections are easily applied to security policy profiles and profile groups, and may be assigned on a per-rule basis."
"My primary use case for this solution is for a secure gateway."
"Scalable ATP solution that's quick to set up. It demonstrates good performance and stability."
"The scalability is acceptable."
"It helps us when segmenting and securing the network and all sort of technologies, all sort of next generation needs. It's next generation phases of firewall like anti-virus, sandboxing, wifi, and VPN."
"Whole team can use the firewall and understand it."
"Stability is never a concern."
"We had some issues in the beginning while setting it up, but after doing the firmware update, it is working fine."
"The firmware needs improvement because there are bugs when a new release comes through. Sometimes, the configuration changes, and it's a bit harder to see where the fail is. The first time that you have the firmware, it tends to have some issues, and it's better to wait a bit to update the equipment."
"FortiGate should have a better way of detecting and managing the system memory because otherwise if the memory is too low, a system restart is required."
"The solution could have licensing fees reduced in the future."
"The cloud management and automation capability could be improved."
"The solution lacks sufficient filtering."
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve by integrating the web application firewall and the DDoS protection part of the solution. Having a WAF feature, web application firewall, and proxy together would be a good benefit."
"It claims it does DLP, but the degree and level of controls are very basic."
"I would like to see different graphs available in the reporting."
"The solution requires a lot of administration."
"Netgate pfSense needs to improve the configuration for a VPN."
"pfSense has some limitations in detecting site sessions. We want to control internet usage based on sites and their content, and pfSense doesn't perform this function."
"It could use a little bit of improvement in the reporting."
"The solution could always work at being more secure. It's a good idea to continue to work on security features and capabilities in order to ensure they can keep clients safe."
"I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"When comparing this solution to others it is not as good overall."
"The deployment model could be better."
"I think it would be nice for Palo Alto to work without the connection to the cloud. It is 100% powerful when connected to the cloud. But, if you disconnect from the cloud, you only get 40-50% power."
"The data analytical system for deployment needs to improve."
"The product's false positive logs could be more user-friendly to understand. They could provide examples of precious cases to learn."
"The threat intelligence that we receiving in the reporting was not as expected. We were expecting more. Additionally, we should be able to whitelist a specific file based on a variety of attributes."
"I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10 due to some slight issues of performance."
"In the future, Palo Alto could reduce the time it takes to process the file."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 3rd in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 58 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Palo Alto Networks WildFire 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 Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection, Fortinet FortiSandbox and Arbor DDoS.
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.