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."Their proxy-based inspection is responsive and secure."
"FortiGate is flexible and easy to use."
"Fortinet FortiGate is stable. It's used across all the countries, this is the way most multinationals run their system."
"Fortinet FortiGate's reliability is valuable."
"I like that they have given me a solution at a fair price."
"It's very fast and easy to configure."
"The security fabric is excellent."
"It is easy to manage, and it doesn't need much knowledge from the team. It is a stable device, and there are many features that are included out of the box."
"I can manage it easily by myself."
"Is good at blocking IP addresses."
"It is a stable solution."
"A valuable feature is that the solution is open source."
"The ability to create a VPN allows me to monitor branch offices from a central location."
"The concurrent users are perfect for us."
"It is easy to use and has integrity with other systems, such as proxies and quality of service."
"The performance and functionality are good."
"The solution has plenty of features."
"The most valuable feature is the improved security that it offers."
"The most effective feature of WildFire for threat analysis is its collaboration with other security profiles on our Palo Alto firewall."
"It catches modified signatures of known viruses."
"The most valuable feature of Palo Alto Networks WildFire is its ability to adapt to environments and its robustness."
"A good tool for file scanning and email threat detection, especially when it comes to attachments and communications."
"The analysis is very fast."
"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."
"Performance and technical support are the main issues with this solution."
"Fortinet FortiGate needs to improve the protection, it did not prevent us from being attacked. Additionally, Fortinet FortiGate could provide more features for WAF devices. I should not have to purchase two solutions, it would be a benefit to combine these features into one solution."
"In the next release, I would like to see the interface simplified to be more user-friendly."
"Pricing for it is a bit high. It could be cheaper."
"Its reporting capabilities can be improved. It should have some out-of-the-box reporting capabilities and some degree of customization. The basic reporting that it currently has is not sufficient to create more usable reports. It needs some sort of out-of-the-box reporting. They try to make customers purchase FortiAnalyzer for this kind of reporting, which is an additional cost. Other firewall vendors, such as SonicWall and Sophos, provide this sort of reporting without any additional cost."
"The cloud features can be improved."
"The Wi-Fi controller needs a lot of improvement."
"To the best of my knowledge, Fortinet does not have a CASB solution and Fortinet does not have a Zero trust solution."
"Ultimately, we'd like something stronger, and something that can handle threats better in real-time."
"Could be simplified for new users."
"pfSense has some limitations in detecting site sessions. We want to control internet usage based on sites and their content, and pfSense doesn't perform this function."
"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."
"We would like to see ready-made profiles to cover most users' needs."
"Network monitoring and device inventory could use some improvements. I'm using SpiceWorks for this because it never really worked in pfSense."
"It's just not listed as FIPS compliant for where we're at now in government, which is an issue."
"pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly."
"They provide a medium level of technical support."
"The cost of this solution could still be improved, in particular, giving product discounts for charitable causes."
"Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that."
"There are more specialized solutions that compete with Wildfire. Therefore, they need to work on their machine learning and AI to be more competitive."
"There are certain changes that I was expecting in the previous version, and I hope that they are soon fixed. All of the problems that I have faced so far have been resolved."
"They can keep on doing more updates. As new malware and viruses are coming out, they can make sure that WildFire is up to date."
"I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10 due to some slight issues of performance."
"The technical support response needs 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, 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 Cloudflare.
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.