We performed a comparison between Meraki MX and pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: The main difference between the two solutions is that Meraki MX is expensive, while pfSense is an open-source solution and is free of charge. In addition, Meraki’s monitoring capabilities could use improvement.
"Centralized monitoring, policy management, and virtualized appliances allow us to take control over our public and private infrastructure."
"A strong point of FortiGate is that the graphical interface is complete and easy to use, especially if we think there is a list of operations that we are able to perform inside."
"The SD-WAN feature is the most valuable. This feature evolved from link load balancing. It has helped us in terms of our uptime and privatizing applications whenever we experience an outage. The SD-WAN feature has been a plus for us. Two-factor authentication has allowed us to add more users in terms of remote working. We have two-factor authentication for remote workers to authenticate them before they get on the network."
"We use the FortiGate Sandbox to detect zero-day vulnerabilities, such as anomalies or malware, that are unknown and have not yet been discovered."
"I am "headache free" that I don't have to categorize all the websites and that security has been pre categorized by the people, and that the services are getting updated. At least one part of my problem is over."
"The pricing is great and very reasonable."
"The simplicity of the configuration and the stability of the product are most valuable. The VPN concentrator is very useful."
"Fortinet FortiGate is a stable solution."
"The initial setup for me was straightforward."
"I am happy with the technical support for the solution. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten."
"To me, the analytics feature is one of the most valuable in Meraki MX. I also find that it has good usability as it's cloud-based. Another valuable feature of Meraki MX is that it's simple to use and it's user-friendly."
"The simplicity of configuration is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"I love the simplicity of Meraki MX — specifically, the simplicity of the dashboard."
"We switched to Meraki because it lets you see what's happening in your LAN and WAN in a graphic and web environment."
"It is easy to manage, which is one of the most important things for us. It is also flexible, stable, and scalable."
"It is very fast to implement."
"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."
"Some of the terminologies were more familiar to me than it was when I first encountered Cisco."
"The ability to create a VPN allows me to monitor branch offices from a central location."
"I use pfSense because it gives me the flexibility to greatly expand basic firewall features."
"The solution is very easy to use and has a very nice GUI."
"Its scalability is a strong point."
"I especially like the VPN part. It works like a charm."
"Firewall system for small, medium, and large data networks. It allows you to provide security to your environment: DMZ networks, LAN, WAN, etc."
"It should come integrated or have its own type of network monitor tool in a module. There should just be one package, and you are good to go."
"I feel that the reporting needs to be improved."
"Price, of course, can always be more competitive or better."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"Bandwidth usage in reporting could be improved for Fortinet FortiGate."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve if it had a cloud-managed solution."
"The support structure needs to be improved because every time we contact them, there is a delay in the response."
"The support system could be improved."
"We can’t access GUI management and CLI opening features when the Internet is unavailable."
"Could possibly use deeper configurations."
"We had minor issues with Meraki MX. We had a couple of RMAs, so that could be an area for improvement, but in terms of how the RMAs went, the turnaround time and getting those back into redeployment were quick. Another area for improvement in Meraki MX is that when you're scaling for multiple locations, you need to use the same model, but the model you'd need is only available for a short time. The specific model you require could be out of stock, or Meraki isn't making that model anymore, so Meraki should improve that."
"I need more UTM protection security features."
"It can be hard to get a hold of the solution’s technical support team."
"The solution's pricing should be reduced."
"More detail needed for configuration of the VPN."
"It would be nice to get detailed logging information without third-party software."
"Reporting and real-time monitoring, since I'm used to Watchguard's reporting features, it would be nice to have an embedded solution for reporting."
"It is not centrally managed, where you log into the website and can see all your services there. We would like to be able to see is all the configurations from a central interface on all our pfSenses."
"Network monitoring and device inventory could use some improvements. I'm using SpiceWorks for this because it never really worked in pfSense."
"It could use a little bit of improvement in the reporting."
"The solution could always work at being more secure. It's a good idea to continue to work on security features and capabilities in order to ensure they can keep clients safe."
"There are several levels of firewall configuration such as beginner, advanced, and expert configurations. At each level, it becomes more complex and more tricky to set up the firewall. For example, if you want to install the firewall on your computer system, it would be a lot easier if it just tells you that this is the internet NIC and this is the Wi-Fi NIC."
"pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly."
"Netgate pfSense needs to improve the configuration for a VPN."
Meraki MX is ranked 2nd in Unified Threat Management (UTM) with 58 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Meraki MX is rated 8.2, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Meraki MX writes "Cost-effective, simplified, easy to manage, and reliable with advanced security features and granular visibility". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Meraki MX is most compared with Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Cisco Secure Firewall, Sophos XG, SonicWall TZ and SonicWall NSa, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Stormshield Network Security. See our Meraki MX 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.
