We performed a comparison between Hillstone CloudEdge and Netgate pfSense based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The most valuable features are the policies, filtering, and configuration."
"It's a user-friendly firewall. Most of the tasks are very simple. It's simple to configure and troubleshoot this firewall."
"It's very good and very stable for businesses. It works very well."
"Layer-3 firewall and routing are the most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is load balancing. It can provide central management and VPNA. Additionally, it has enhanced our security environment."
"Overall security features and performance routing is good."
"The ease of setting the solution up is a valuable aspect for us."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is very easy to download and configure. The initial setup was very easy. The technical support is very good."
"The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, are the most important."
"It is effective. We have not had any problems."
"The redundancy and scalability ARE very nice."
"Great extensibility of the platform."
"I use pfSense because it gives me the flexibility to greatly expand basic firewall features."
"This solution has increased the level of security, given us more control, provided a deep insight into network traffic, and is a great VPN solution."
"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 GUI is easy to understand."
"I would like to see improvements made to the dashboard and UI, as well as to the reporting."
"There aren't really any negative aspects to discuss."
"You do need some IT knowledge in order to effectively work with the solution."
"FortiLink is the interface on the firewall that allows you to extend switch management across all of your switches in the network. The problem with it is that you can't use multiple interfaces unless you set them up in a lag. Only then you can run them. So, it forces you to use a core type of switch to propagate that management out to the rest of the switches, and then it is running the case at 200. It leaves you with 18 ports on the firewall because it is also a layer-three router that could also be used as a switch, but as soon as you do that, you can't really use them. They could do a little bit more clean up in the way the stacking interface works. Some use cases and the documentation on the FortiLink checking interface are a little outdated. I can find stuff on version 5 or more, but it is hard to find information on some of the newer firmware. The biggest thing I would like to see is some improvement in the switch management feature. I would like to be able to relegate some of the ports, which are on the firewall itself, to act as a switch to take advantage of those ports. Some of these firewalls have clarity ports on them. If I can use those, it would mean that I need to buy two less switches, which saves time. I get why they don't, but I would still like to see it because it would save a little bit of space in the server rack."
"Usually, we sell the bundle with the UTM or threat management piece with IPS, IDS. Other providers, such as Palo Alto, are ahead in terms of safe functionality. So, for me, delivering truly safe service is probably something that still needs to be improved."
"I would suggest that Fortinet add sandboxing to their solution."
"It needs to improve its ISP load balancing."
"The feature which gives us a lot of pain is ASIC architecture."
"The solution needs more granular level reporting on system usage."
"They could improve their commercial stance and be more agile when it comes to the commercial pricing of enterprise deals."
"The interface is not very shiny and attractive."
"The security could be improved."
"The solution could use better reporting. They need to offer more of it in general. Right now, the graphics aren't the best. If you need to provide a report to a manager, for example, it doesn't look great. They need to make it easier to understand and give users the ability to customize them."
"I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial."
"It requires more attention to provide a better alternative for open source to small government or educational institutions with reduced budgets in terms of technology."
"The technical support needs to be improved."
"The configuration of the solution is a bit difficult."
Hillstone CloudEdge is ranked 32nd in Firewalls with 1 review while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Hillstone CloudEdge is rated 10.0, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Hillstone CloudEdge writes "A stable solution that is easy to configure". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Hillstone CloudEdge is most compared with , whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall.
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.