Comparison conclusions:
pfSense offers paid options for additional support and features (pfSense Plus), a wider range of features and a larger community, but might have a steeper learning curve.
OPNsense provides a clean interface and built-in security features, but its community and documentation are smaller
The summary above is based on 40 interviews we conducted with pfSense and OPNsense users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"It is useful for protecting and segregating the internal networks from the internet. Most of our customers also use the FortiGate client to connect to their offices by using the VPN client, and of course, they usually activate the antivirus, deep inspection, and intrusion prevention services. They are also using it for web filtering and implementing various policies dealing with forwardings, NAT, etc."
"The most important features of Fortinet FortiGate are the Intrusion Prevention System (IPS) and firewall control applications."
"In terms of security, we have not experienced any security flaws or loopholes, and it has proven to be quite stable."
"The most important features with FortiGate are the web filter and application controls. We can control our internet usage and use the web filter for application purposes."
"The solution is very easy to understand. It's not overly complex."
"What's most important is the ease of use."
"The tool is a nice product and easy to handle. The software's user interface is also good. You can easily implement remote access in the solution."
"From the firewall perspective, the rules and policies are very sufficient and easy to use."
"pfSense allows us to spread the hours of connection and do the filtering on the pfSense site."
"The tools' most valuable feature is load balancing."
"We can run it on any hardware."
"Creation of certificates and the facility to administer services are valuable features."
"It is easy to use and has integrity with other systems, such as proxies and quality of service."
"It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good."
"One of the advantages of pfSense is that it is very easy to work with. It is a very good open-source solution, and it works really well. pfSense provides a complete package. For some features, it could be the first solution in the world. It is a very good alternative in the market for a firewall solution. You don't need to go to Cisco or other brands with expensive firewalls. pfSense also allows us to offer some support services."
"I have found pfSense to be stable."
"The VPN server feature is the most valuable. It is integrated with Radius and AAA for doing accounting and authentication. Insight view is also an important feature for me at this time. It allows me to assess our network traffic. I also like the firewall feature. The BSD kernel has a packet filter. It is one of the most solid frameworks for firewalls. Its user interface is one of the best interfaces I have used."
"OPNsense is highly stable."
"The most valuable features in OPNsense are reporting and visibility."
"It's more secure and more reliable."
"The feature I find most valuable, is that the program helped me to realize all the requested functionality that was needed."
"The most valuable features of OPNsense are the GUI and frequent updates."
"The initial implementation process is simple."
"What I like best about OPNsense is that, as a firewall, it's pretty good. I'm quite impressed with it. I had an excellent experience with OPNsense, which helped me achieve the targets I wanted."
"There were quite a few problems with the stability of the system."
"The graphical user interface of Fortinet's FortiGate product does not function well with text-based interfaces."
"The solution could be more evenly structured."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having more storage in the hardware for log data."
"They should improve high CPU and memory usage that occurs."
"Fortinet currently has many products bundled with FortiGate including the basic firewall and load balancer, and I think that that they need to have separate product portfolios for each of these specialized services."
"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."
"In terms of what could be improved, the SD-WAN is quite difficult, because if you install the new box, 15 is okay, but if you change from an old configuration, if there is already configuration and a policy when you change to SD-WAN, you must change the whole policy that you see in the interface."
"Also, the GUI is helpful, but it's not user-friendly. It's complicated. It should be more intuitive for the average user and have an excellent graphical view. Of course, the user will typically know about network administration, but it still should be easy to understand."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"If you want to take advantage of all of the solution's options, you need to have a bit of a technical background. It's not for a layperson."
"This solution is good for small businesses but it is not as stable as other competitors such as Fortinet."
"The interface is not very shiny and attractive."
"Perhaps the documentation is not clear and because it is supported in the community there is no basic documentation."
"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."
"The Netgate forums and community don’t provide extensive discussions and topics related to every pfSense service."
"The solution would not be suitable for anything large-scale."
"On the customer-side, because I'm a small business, I need a cheaper or free solution option."
"The ability to set the VPN IP address would be a welcome addition."
"The interface isn't so friendly user. But we have some technicians here who are quite confident with this tool. OPNSense could maybe add sets of rules so it's simpler to manage different groups with particular needs."
"Given that OPNsense plays a pivotal role as a firewall, safeguarding against various threats, having a reliable backup ensures uninterrupted protection even if unforeseen events impact the primary virtual machine."
"They should improve IPEs for security in the future."
"The scalability needs improvement."
"The only thing that I would like to see improved is the Insight or the NetFlow analysis part. It would be good to have the possibility to dig down on the Insight platform. Right now, we can easily do only a few analyses. If this page becomes more powerful, it surely will be a well-adopted platform."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while OPNsense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 36 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while OPNsense 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 OPNsense writes "Robust network security and management offering a user-friendly interface, open-source flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, with challenges regarding initial setup and the absence of official support". Netgate pfSense is most compared with Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM, Cisco Secure Firewall and WatchGuard Firebox, whereas OPNsense is most compared with Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos UTM, IPFire and WatchGuard Firebox. See our Netgate pfSense vs. OPNsense 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.