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 initial installation is very straightforward."
"It has improved our organization with control data."
"The solution is very, very easy to use."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"It's an easy solution to set up."
"The product is very stable, easy to troubleshoot, and configure, so it has reduced the time it takes for support."
"FortiGate Secure SD-WAN includes best-of-breed next-generation firewall (NGFW) security, SD-WAN, advanced routing, and WAN optimization capabilities, delivering a security-driven networking WAN edge transformation in a unified offering."
"Fortinet FortiGate is scalable for our users. Right now, we have almost 70 users. We do not have any plan to increase our usage of FortiGate. For maintaining the firewall solution, one staff member is enough."
"The flexibility of adding new kinds of services without spending any money can't be beaten."
"It is a stable solution. It is also easy to install and can be deployed and maintained by one team member."
"The solution is fairly scalable when it comes to integrating with other applications and data sets."
"I have found pfSense to be stable."
"The "OpenVPN Client Export" package is really helpful in exporting the VPN client software on most popular devices: iOS/Android, Windows, Mac, Linux, and a handful of SIP handsets."
"Sophos Intercept X is scalable. Currently, we have almost 30 people using it in our company."
"Great extensibility of the platform."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the cloud-based protection against zero-day malware attacks."
"Being an application-based firewall, this is one of the critical focus factors along with the threat prevention services it provides."
"High availability with active-active and active-passive modes."
"The way that the solution quickly updates to adjust to threats is the solution's most valuable aspect. When there's a security attack, within five minutes, all Wildfire subscribers have access to updates so that all systems will be safe. Its threat prevention is way better than other vendor products."
"The backup is the best feature."
"We have found that Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable. We currently have six thousand users for the product."
"It is stable and pretty much scalable."
"It has a user-friendly interface."
"The stability could be a bit better."
"Due to its higher cost, Fortinet FortiGate can lead to increased operational expenses."
"The price of FortiGate should be reduced because there are some other leading products that are cheaper."
"The cloud features can be improved."
"Pricing for it is a bit high. It could be cheaper."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having more storage in the hardware for log data."
"If I had any criticism that I would give FortiGate, it would be that they need to stop changing their logging format. Every time we do a firmware upgrade, it is a massive issue on the SIM. Parsers have to be rebuilt. Even the FortiGate guys came in and said that they don't play well in the sandbox."
"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."
"I'd like to find something in pfSense that is more specific to URL filtering. We have customers who would like to filter their web traffic. They would like to be able to say to their employees, "You can surf the web, but you cannot get access to Facebook or other social media," or "You can surf the web, but you're not allowed to gamble or watch porn on the web." My technicians say that doing this kind of stuff with pfSense nowadays is not easy. They can implement some filters using IP addresses but not by using the names of the domains and categories. So, we are not able to exclude some categories from the allowed traffic, such as porn, gambling, etc. To do that, we have to use another product and another web filter that uses DNS. I know that there are some third-party products that could work with pfSense, but I'd like the native pfSense solution to do that."
"In an upcoming release, the reporting could be more user-friendly. For example, the reporting in graphs and charts for the host can be cumbersome."
"This solution is good for small businesses but it is not as stable as other competitors such as Fortinet."
"The VPN feature of the solution could improve by adding better functionality and providing easier configure ability."
"A malware blocker should be included. I do not know if it is included yet. However, until now, we have not experienced a large malware invasion."
"I would like to see different graphs available in the reporting."
"I expect a better interface with more log analysis because I create my own interface."
"More documentation would be great, especially on new features because sometimes, when new features come out, you don't get to understand them right off the bat. You have to really spend a lot of time understanding them. So, more documentation would be awesome."
"When comparing this solution to others it is not as good overall."
"There are some formats that the solution cannot support ."
"The technical support response needs improvement."
"The global product feature needs improvement, the VPN, and we need some enhanced features."
"It would be nice if there was an easier way to install and deploy it, such as through the inclusion of wizards."
"The cost of the solution is excessively high."
"When you contact support, there is no guarantee that they will be available to help you tackle the issue that you are facing."
"They provide a medium level of technical support."
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, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Cisco Secure Firewall, Proofpoint Email Protection, Juniper SRX Series Firewall, Fortinet FortiSandbox and Microsoft Defender for Office 365.
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.