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 SD-WAN is the most valuable feature."
"It has very easy management and an amazing ETM configuration."
"The license management is very valuable. You can get a new license each year, or you can enroll every two to four years. You can get the logs, and you will get the information on the risk in your network and the entire organization. With this information, you can take action on your actives, computers, or devices. You can bring your own device as an SSE."
"Offers good security and filtering."
"The security on offer is very good."
"We are using the FortiGate 100D series. VPN, firewall, anti-malware, OTM, and intrusion prevention are useful features."
"The payment function for applications is good."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is security. They are known for efficiency and are on the top of Gartner Quadrant reviews. Fortinet FortiGate has an easy-to-use platform with a good graphical interface. The configuration is simple and the solution provides an overall good layer of security."
"I have found the most valuable features to be antivirus and malware protection."
"The most valuable features of pfSense are security, user-friendliness, and helpful online management."
"I like pfSense's reports and how I can control access to the policies on the firewall."
"This solution has helped our organization by protecting our network from attacks."
"The built-in open VPN and the VPN Client Export are the solution's most valuable aspects."
"The tools' most valuable feature is load balancing."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"It is effective. We have not had any problems."
"We have found that Palo Alto Networks WildFire is scalable. We currently have six thousand users for the product."
"The graphic user interface of Palo Alto is good and it's easy to configure."
"My primary use case for this solution is for a secure gateway."
"It is the best device in comparison to other network products in the marketplace."
"With this product, we receive the best monitoring and reports."
"Being an application-based firewall, this is one of the critical focus factors along with the threat prevention services it provides."
"It has a user-friendly interface."
"The solution is completely integrated with all the other Palo Alto products. I think that it is the best part for endpoint protection. The firewall features include URL and DNS filtering, threat protection, and antivirus."
"The user interface could be improved."
"I would like to have logs, monitoring, and reporting for a month without extra fees."
"With the reports, you can see it, and you can get good feelings so upper management can go, "Oh, wow. That looks pretty." However, it's very basic."
"A lack of integration between our data centers."
"In the next release, maybe the documentation on how to use this solution could be improved."
"The biggest "gotcha" is that if the client purchases what they call the UTM shared bundle, which has unified threat management on both, it's not as easy to manage if you have more than one firewall."
"Fortinet should focus on enhancing the capabilities of FortiGate by consolidating its various products, such as FortiGate Cloud, FortiManager, and FortiAnalyzer."
"The captive portal could be improved."
"The configuration of the solution is a bit difficult."
"The integration could be improved."
"We have not had any problems with it, and we also do not have a need for any new features. If anything, its reporting can be better. Sophos has better reporting than pfSense. Sophos has more detailed information. pfSense is not as detailed. It is summarized."
"The technical support needs to be improved."
"The interface is not very shiny and attractive."
"pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly."
"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."
"My only observation is about the quality of the IPSec logs, which are difficult to interpret and are poor in filters."
"There are more specialized solutions that compete with Wildfire. Therefore, they need to work on their machine learning and AI to be more competitive."
"It would be nice if there was an easier way to install and deploy it, such as through the inclusion of wizards."
"The product's false positive logs could be more user-friendly to understand. They could provide examples of precious cases to learn."
"When comparing this solution to others it is not as good overall."
"In the future, I would like to see more automation in the reporting."
"In terms of what I'd like to see in the next release of Palo Alto Networks WildFire, each release is based on malware that has been identified. The key problem is an average of six months from the time malware is written to the time it's discovered and a signature is created for it. The only advice that I can give is for them to shorten that timeframe. I don't know how they would do it, but if they shorten that, for example, cut it in half, they'll make themselves more famous."
"The system performance degrades after the solution has been deployed for some time. The data that it gives us becomes a little bit slow. When you try to get some data for troubleshooting, it seems like it's working hard to extract that data."
"I think it would be nice for Palo Alto to work without the connection to the cloud. It is 100% powerful when connected to the cloud. But, if you disconnect from the cloud, you only get 40-50% power."
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 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.