We performed a comparison between Netgate pfSense and Sangfor NGAF 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 secure web gateway module and the application control module are valuable. HA operations are very easy."
"The security features that they have are quite good. On top of that, their licensing model is quite nice where they don't charge you anything for the SD-WAN functionality for the firewall."
"The UTM feature is quite good. FortiAP is easy to deploy because both Fortigate and FortiAP are under the same brand. Otherwise, you need to do more work on the configuration."
"Fortigate's most valuable feature is that it doesn't need a push policy when writing rules."
"It's very easy to set up, it's very easy to make policies and, for an organization, that means you don't need IT expert in firewalls. You just need to have somebody who knows a little bit of IT, and that's it. With other products, you need someone with a "Masters" degree in firewalls."
"Anti-Spam web content filterinG."
"We purchased Fortinet because of the pricing, its functionality, because it met our requirements, and the total cost of ownership over five years was quite reasonable. In the market, Fortinet is rated quite well."
"It is very flexible to use."
"The solution has good customization abilities and plenty of features."
"I like the connectivity to the open VPN. It's very smooth."
"The most valuable features are the VPN and the capture photo."
"The firewall sensor is highly effective, and it's easy to deploy. You can deploy pfSense with limited hardware resources. It's not necessary to have an appliance with much RAM to make it work. It's cost-effective and performs well."
"The solution is very robust."
"I like pfSense's reports and how I can control access to the policies on the firewall."
"It is easy to use and has integrity with other systems, such as proxies and quality of service."
"What I found most valuable is the cost of the platform, the flexibility of the platform, and the fact that the ongoing fees are not there as they are with the competitor. Some people may think you're taking a risk with using Opensource. I think it just provides the end user, specifically for us small, medium business providers of services, the flexibility we need at the right cost to provide them a higher end, almost enterprise type service."
"The price versus value is good because the solution is less expensive than Sophos, Fortinet, or SonicWall."
"We've found the technical support to be helpful."
"You might try Sangfor if you are on a tight budget. The price is affordable, and Sangfor offers a lot of features. We don't have any complaints about Sangfor."
"It's a very simple to use product."
"The absolute best part of Sangfor NGAF is their support. It's a 24/7 support channel, and the last time I requested their assistance I got a reply within three minutes. They helped solve the problem immediately."
"The level of support provided to local companies is good. They transform their application control and other settings according to that country."
"The product is very fast and reliable."
"It offers application control features."
"I think the only issue that needs improvement is the interface."
"In the balance between links feature normally you can just choose one option to balance. It would be better for the solution to have more than one option, preferably three."
"The solution needs to improve its integration with cybersecurity."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having better visibility. Palo Alto has better visibility."
"The Wi-Fi controller needs a lot of improvement."
"The updates Fortinet provides are sometimes unstable."
"Reporting is limited to providing an external appliance for improving the reporting capabilities of the FortiAnalyzer. It does not offer a central management and is also sold separably as an appliance."
"The central management for the FortiGate Fortinet Firewall needs improvement. They have the manager to do the essential management for both SD-WAN and for the security policy. They should also improve the SD-WAN function."
"There could be a way to remote to it through a mobile app. You can always browse through your browser on your mobile phone or tablet, but it would be good to have a dedicated app. I understand that iOS and Android developers are expensive, but there should be a mobile app."
"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."
"Ultimately, we'd like something stronger, and something that can handle threats better in real-time."
"Adjustment in the interfaces: I had to adjust those interfaces manually and of course that is a great feature that you can restore it but it is immediately also one point for improvement. If you don't have to adjust, if it's just stamped and it works, that's great."
"We are at the moment looking to use it as a proxy service so that we can limit what websites people go and view and that sort of thing. That's an area I've struggled with a little bit at the moment and it could be a bit easier to set up."
"Also, the GUI is helpful, but it's not user-friendly. It's complicated. It should be more intuitive for the average user and have an excellent graphical view. Of course, the user will typically know about network administration, but it still should be easy to understand."
"The solution’s interface must be improved."
"In terms of areas of improvement, the interface seemed like it had a lot. The GUI interface that I had gotten into was rather elaborate. I don't know if they could zero in on some markets and potentially for small, medium businesses specifically, give them a stripped-down version of the GUI for pfSense."
"I would be happy if Sangfor developed a firewall designed specifically for home use, as well as for small businesses such as clinics and so on. A household version of the Sangfor firewall for your personal computer or laptop would be ideal, in my opinion."
"The solution has too many bugs and these slow down the implementation."
"The product must provide more IPS features."
"Sangfor could improve by providing better real-time reporting, as the current reports don't offer the level of detail we need, especially for runtime insights."
"Occasional issues with breaches which are dealt with expediently."
"An area of improvement for Sangfor NGAF could be in the field of reporting and logging."
"Sangfor NGAF could improve the policies and default criteria. They could be much better."
"The support for YouTube or the Internet is not enough."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 20th in Firewalls with 31 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 8.0. 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 Sangfor NGAF writes "Affordable, easy to configure firewall with fast, responsive support". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Sophos XG, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Check Point NGFW, Fortinet FortiOS and Huawei NGFW. See our Netgate pfSense vs. Sangfor NGAF 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.
