We performed a comparison between OPNsense and WatchGuard Firebox 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."We use the filtering feature the most. It has filtering and inbuilt securities. We can create customized rules to define which users can access a particular type of site. We can create policies inside the firewall."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the rules and quality of service."
"The initial setup of Fortinet FortiGate was straightforward."
"The product is easy to use and is stable. The SV1 functionality is a benefit."
"The SD-WAN feature is the most valuable. This feature evolved from link load balancing. It has helped us in terms of our uptime and privatizing applications whenever we experience an outage. The SD-WAN feature has been a plus for us. Two-factor authentication has allowed us to add more users in terms of remote working. We have two-factor authentication for remote workers to authenticate them before they get on the network."
"It increases security posture and is helpful for firewall reporting, intrusion protection, web filtering, and SD-WAN implementation."
"Reliability is the best feature. We faced some issues when we were setting it up, but the service, portal, and administration are good."
"The technical support is great."
"I find the solution to be user-friendly. It has a lot of reports and easy settings."
"The solution has high availability."
"OPNsense could improve by making the configuration more web-based rather than shell or command-line-based."
"The solution is user-friendly and easy to configure."
"The interface and the dashboard are the most valuable features of this solution."
"URL blocking, Wireguard, Tail Scale, Engine Blocker, and VPN are the most valuable features for me."
"The most valuable features of OPNsense are the GUI and frequent updates."
"OPNsense is easy to use and open source."
"The most valuable features are the VPN and web blocker security."
"We experienced that WatchGuard is easy to setup regarding VPN compared to other firewalls of other brands."
"What I found most valuable in WatchGuard Firebox is that it's a functional platform that works, and each of its features works well. The solution also has good reporting and dashboard capabilities. I also find the overall performance of WatchGuard Firebox great."
"From my experience with their customer service team, I would say that they seem quite knowledgeable and fairly quick to respond."
"The most valuable features of the WatchGuard Firebox are all the security and updated features. You are able to configure the solution from the cloud platform and the application and web interface are very nice."
"It has everything we need in terms of functionality."
"There are many fantastic features."
"I like their management features a lot. Their System Manager server as well the System Manager software make managing them, and tracking changes, very easy and complete."
"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."
"Some of the filtering is not robust, you can escape it with a VPN. Some of the users bypass some of the filters. It catches some but it also misses some, that area could be improved. It's functioning reasonably but there's room for improvement in that area."
"The logs need to be better. They need to be more visible and easier to access."
"When we cluster the two Fortinet FortiGate boxes together we have some issues."
"There are a lot of bugs I have found in the solution and it is difficult to upgrade. These areas need improvement."
"The pricing could be reduced or include the first year warranty."
"Some features of Fortinet FortiGate are actually fee enabled that are inconvenient for deploying in production. Other issues relate to isolation with Cisco products and your server."
"The visibility of the network can be better. The GUI can be improved for better visibility of the network flow. Other solutions have better GUI in terms of network visibility."
"I would like to see better SD-WAN performance."
"I think the most important thing is that it should be easily accessible, but currently, that doesn't seem to be the case. We need a hardware platform that's based on common standards and open computing principles, which would be like a commodity and benefit us greatly."
"When using the solution at the beginning was difficult. There was a steep learning curve."
"There is room for improvement in SSL inspection."
"The scalability needs improvement."
"The interface needs to be simplified. It is not user-friendly."
"There should be more technical documentation."
"You will need additional training before you can actually start to use it."
"We would like to see granular notification settings and more advanced filtering in traffic monitoring."
"The software in it could be a bit more friendly for an amateur user. I look at it and don't understand what half the stuff is. Looking at the interface, it is all mumbo-jumbo to me. It's not a simple interface. You have to be an IT guy to understand it. It is not for your average person to use, then walk away from it. It is much more entailed."
"Reporting is something you've got to set up separately. It's one of those things that you've got to put some time into. One of the options is to set up a local report server, which is what I did. It's not great. It's okay... Some of the stuff is a little complicated to get up and running. Once you do, it becomes very user-friendly and easy to work with, but I find there are some implementation headaches with some of their stuff."
"The software base, the management piece that goes onto a server, is not as user-friendly as I would like. There are three different pieces that you have to manage, so it's a little bit convoluted, in my opinion."
"Sometimes, the writing rules are a little confusing in how am I doing them."
"Some of the configuration options are somewhat confusing."
"Its documentation could be improved. Sometimes, you need to search a bit longer to find what you are looking for."
"There is room for improvement on the education side, regarding what does what, rather than just throwing it at a person and assuming they know everything about it. A lot of times, you have to call WatchGuard support to get the solution that will work, rather than their just having it published so that you can fix the problem on your own."
OPNsense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 36 reviews while WatchGuard Firebox is ranked 13th in Firewalls with 79 reviews. OPNsense is rated 8.4, while WatchGuard Firebox is rated 8.4. 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". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WatchGuard Firebox writes "Offers a streamlined deployment, intuitive interface and robust security features". OPNsense is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas WatchGuard Firebox is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ, Meraki MX and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our OPNsense vs. WatchGuard Firebox report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors and 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.