We performed a comparison between Juniper vSRX and Netgate pfSense 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."Valuable features include the Web Application Firewall, and it even has DLP (data leak prevention)."
"SSL-VPN is very useful for us and has been very reliable."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is the simple configuration."
"The response is very quick and they can visually resolve our problems in a short period."
"The wireless control is helpful."
"I like that you are able to manage FortiGate from the FortiManager to create a more centralized environment."
"The most valuable features of the solution are SD-WAN, filtering testing applications, web filtering, and the new VPN."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The product’s quality and performance are better than other vendors."
"The solution has good features."
"The hardware is stable."
"It is deployed on the customer site, and we manage the firewalls on this side."
"The command feature is valuable."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"It is easy for me to go in and update settings, make changes, or add/remove rules or security."
"The architecture of the OS in Juniper is very good. It's flexibility, scalability, and the technicality is also good."
"The intrusion detection feature is the most valuable. It is an open-source firewall, so there is a lot of material on it. I also find the open VPN capability very nice. It is pretty customizable. The clustering and the high availability are the two biggest things to be able to get out of a firewall."
"It is a stable solution."
"The redundancy and scalability ARE very nice."
"One of the advantages of pfSense is that it is very easy to work with. It is a very good open-source solution, and it works really well. pfSense provides a complete package. For some features, it could be the first solution in the world. It is a very good alternative in the market for a firewall solution. You don't need to go to Cisco or other brands with expensive firewalls. pfSense also allows us to offer some support services."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"The product’s documentation is good."
"We generally use it because it's cheap. When we need something more robust we use Barracuda and Sony Wireless Routers. For certain clients, we use pfSense because it's compatible with the VoIP platform."
"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."
"This product could be improved with Active directory integration and better handling in IPsec and GRE Tunnels."
"WAN load-balancing could be a lot better at detecting when a link is poor or inconsistent, and not just flat out dead."
"It can be a little bit more user-friendly in terms of policy definition and implementation. It seems a little bit complicated, and it could be simplified."
"I would like Fortinet to add more automation to FortiGate."
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve the integration with Active Directory. Additionally, I would like to have a Cloud Controller, such as they do in the Cisco Meraki solution."
"The setup is pretty complex and not easy to implement."
"Application management can be improved."
"The non-error conserve mode has room for improvement."
"We experienced some technical issues during implementation"
"VPN access is an area that needs improvement."
"Fortinet is more user friendly than Juniper. In terms of remote access, I actually prefer using Fortinet. It's much easier to configure."
"They really need to improve the GUI."
"The reporting can be improved."
"The solution's GUI needs improvement."
"he stability could be improved."
"There are too many types of licenses, which can be confusing."
"Web interface could be enhanced and more user friendly."
"I've never tried it in large environments. All my clients are small businesses with a handful of employees, so I am not sure how it works in large environments. I keep up with recent versions, and there's nothing I'm waiting for, and nothing breaks when I get a new version."
"They could improve their commercial stance and be more agile when it comes to the commercial pricing of enterprise deals."
"Layer 7 advanced firewall features are not included in the solution."
"I tried pfSense, and it has a big issue with file system consistency, and this is what drove me to OPNsense. The file system stability is quite a big issue for us. We have a lot of outages related to power issues, and OPNsense is much more stable on this side."
"Could be simplified for new users."
"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."
"The GUI could use improvements, though it is manageable."
Juniper vSRX is ranked 26th in Firewalls with 30 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Juniper vSRX is rated 7.8, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Juniper vSRX writes "Fast with good usability and fairly scalable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Juniper vSRX is most compared with Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Juniper vSRX vs. Netgate pfSense 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.