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 technical support in our region is excellent."
"Fortinet FortiGate appears to be scalable."
"It enables our organization to become more productive. Also, it protects our NEtWare from viruses and malware."
"The security features are about the best that I've seen anywhere."
"FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use."
"It works very well. It has a lot of different functionalities. Its cost is also fine for our customers."
"The network security and cloud security are most valuable."
"Its performance in fulfilling our requirements has been satisfactory."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"The built-in open VPN and the VPN Client Export are the solution's most valuable aspects."
"pfSense is a nice product, and I find that there's a lot of information out there. There are some good tutorials on YouTube and other websites with helpful information."
"My technicians find the pfSense's web interface very useful. It is very easy to use. pfSense is very reliable and stable. We like the OpenVPN clients that can be deployed using pfSense very much."
"It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good."
"The GUI is easy to understand."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"pfSense helped us during COVID-19 because we used OpenVPN to connect from home."
"The technical support is good."
"Whole team can use the firewall and understand it."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable features are all of the security features in terms of protection and SSL and VPN."
"It is the best device in comparison to other network products in the marketplace."
"It is stable and pretty much scalable."
"You have better control because you define apps. You just don't define ports. You define apps, and the apps are monitored in the traffic. It is more specific than the Cisco firewall when it comes to our needs."
"The solution is scalable."
"Fortinet doesn't provide multiple virtual firewalls which would facilitate end users and customers."
"WAN load-balancing could be a lot better at detecting when a link is poor or inconsistent, and not just flat out dead."
"One of the problems I was having was with user mapping, and it is an issue for which I have escalated tickets with Fortinet support."
"I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE."
"Sometimes you do need to know some CLI commands, so it's a bit harder for technicians or new people that don't know it."
"Some of the software stability could improve."
"The captive portal could be improved."
"The routing capability on the FortiGate devices has room for improvement."
"Also, simplifying the rules for the GeoIP. Making it simpler to understand would be an improvement."
"A way to clean squid cache from the GUI."
"My only observation is about the quality of the IPSec logs, which are difficult to interpret and are poor in filters."
"There could be a way to remote to it through a mobile app. You can always browse through your browser on your mobile phone or tablet, but it would be good to have a dedicated app. I understand that iOS and Android developers are expensive, but there should be a mobile app."
"Ease of use is a problem for a user who is unfamiliar with this product because, in the interface, everything has to be set manually."
"The solution requires a lot of administration."
"The router monitoring needs improvement when compared with Sonicwall."
"For the third-party packages, I'd rather have it built-in, like a core feature of pfSense, part of the core model."
"The automation and responsiveness need improvement."
"Any enhancements should likely be focused on the firewall appliance to further strengthen overall security capabilities, such as refining app and user identity features."
"It would be nice if there was an easier way to install and deploy it, such as through the inclusion of wizards."
"In the future, Palo Alto could reduce the time it takes to process the file."
"The only problem with this solution is the cost. It's expensive."
"The global product feature needs improvement, the VPN, and we need some enhanced features."
"The size of Palo Alto's cloud is big but it could be easier to use from a product management perspective."
"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.