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."The most useful functionality of Fortinet FortiGate is the user interface, multiple engines, and their cloud with the latest integrations. Additionally, the Security Fabric tool is very good."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a scalable solution."
"It's super reliable. I don't think I've ever had a reliability issue with it."
"I think that the UTM features are the most value, as it truly protects my infrastructure."
"The CLI and GUI do a good job of putting a lot at your fingertips."
"Their reliability and their policy of pre-shipping replacements when a unit has failed."
"Provides good firewall security and has great VPN features."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the rules and quality of service."
"pfSense allows us to spread the hours of connection and do the filtering on the pfSense site."
"It is a stable solution."
"It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good."
"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."
"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."
"The scalability is very good, where you can do an HA configuration and then bring in another box, if necessary."
"The concurrent users are perfect for us."
"The ability to perform packet captures on the command line and via the GUI is useful for diagnosing problems."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is how it keeps up-to-date with viruses."
"The solution is easy to use and the Panorama feature is good. The software management or the malware blocking and some authentication management system are good."
"The most valuable feature is the cloud-based protection against zero-day malware attacks."
"The technical support is good."
"It is the best device in comparison to other network products in the marketplace."
"For example, if a security Intel threat talks about an IOC. We can then go to our MSP and say, "Is there a signature for this particular type of malware that just came out?" And if they'll say yes, then we'll say, "Okay. Does it apply to these firewalls? And have we seen any hits on it?" There's absolutely value in it."
"It has a user-friendly interface."
"It gives a more accurate assessment of a virus in terms of whether it's truly a virus, malware, or a false positive. We have some legacy software that could pop up as being something that is malware. WildFire goes through and inspects it, and then it comes back and lets us know if it's a false positive. Usually, when it finds out that it's not a virus, it lets us know that it's benign, and it can exclude it from that scan, which means I don't even have to worry about that one popping up anymore."
"I would like some automated custom reporting."
"I use the FortiGate 60D model and realized the 300Mbps bandwidth limitation. Because it is a product that offers many services, I think it could have greater bandwidth capacity."
"One of the features that I would like to have is to do with endpoint production, it should be integrated. For example, the firewall gets notified of any kind of forensic event that needs to be done, such as if there is a ransomware attack and how it originated, all those records have to be available from the firewall, which is not."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve the user interface. There should be more functionality and options through the GUI."
"I'm not sure if it's something that they already have or are developing something, however, we need some dedicated features for container security."
"Technical support could be better. You don't always get the level of help you need right away."
"It is very expensive, and their support is not very good. I hope that their technical support will be better in the future."
"It should provide better visibility over the network and more information in the form of reports for the end users. Its installation should also be easier."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"Ease of use is a problem for a user who is unfamiliar with this product because, in the interface, everything has to be set manually."
"There are some bias issues and some intrusions in our network that have to be addressed. So, we're thinking of changing this firewall to something like a professional hardware-enabled firewall."
"It is not centrally managed, where you log into the website and can see all your services there. We would like to be able to see is all the configurations from a central interface on all our pfSenses."
"The hotspot and the portal feature in this solution are not stable for WiFi access. We use it at least once or twice every day and it crashes. Some modules can be better by improving detection and having new updates. Additionally, we have some issues with clustering and load balancing that could improve."
"I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial."
"I would like to see pfSense integrate WireGuard. Currently, pfSense uses OpenVPN, and there's nothing wrong with it, but WireGuard is a lot leaner and meaner."
"The integration could be improved."
"The cyber security visibility and forensics features to receive more information about incidents could improve in Palo Alto Networks WildFire."
"They provide a medium level of technical support."
"Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that."
"The free version does not have real-time updates. It is slow."
"They should make their user interface a little more user-friendly."
"High availability features are lacking."
"It would be nice if there was an easier way to install and deploy it, such as through the inclusion of wizards."
"The automation and responsiveness need improvement."
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.