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.
"The SD-WAN is the most valuable feature."
"It has improved our organization with control data."
"The most valuable features are SD-WAN, application control, IPS control, and FortiSandbox."
"It's very easy to configure."
"I like that they have given me a solution at a fair price."
"The payment function for applications is good."
"It has improved our security capabilities."
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"Is good at blocking IP addresses."
"It is a very good solution for enterprises that need a VPN for their employees. It is the best way to provide a remote work facility to employees at a very low cost. Other solutions that I have had in the past were very expensive. Enterprises don't always have that kind of money to invest."
"There is good documentation with a fantastic community and enterprise support."
"It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good."
"The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, are the most important."
"The documentation is very good."
"The gain in performance and security from configuring the VPN connections was significant."
"The most valuable features are the VPN and the capture photo."
"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."
"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."
"I feel that its valuable features are that it is simple and free."
"I have found the solution has some great features overall, such as guest access capabilities, dashboards, and ease of use. There is plenty of documentation and support and it has the plugins that I needed."
"OPNsense is easy to use and open source."
"The interface and the dashboard are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The solution is good for a basic firewall for a small business or for home use."
"The initial setup is easy. It only takes 15-30 minutes to deploy."
"The support from Fortinet FortiGate could improve. They are not easily accessible when we need them. They could improve their response time."
"The support team for Fortinet FortiGate needs to be more customer friendly."
"Fortinet doesn't provide multiple virtual firewalls which would facilitate end users and customers."
"There are some problems that support cannot give you a logical reason as to why it happened. For example, I had a case where I was dealing with a WhatsApp application that was giving issues. Technical support gave more than one reason it could be giving issues, but none of them solved the problem. Eventually I solved the problem, but it was far from the solutions that support had given."
"Technical support could be better. You don't always get the level of help you need right away."
"Performance and technical support are the main issues with this solution."
"There are some license issues. Not every feature must have a separate license. There must be some of kind synergy between the license so we don't have to pay for every individual license that we would like to have."
"FortiLink is the interface on the firewall that allows you to extend switch management across all of your switches in the network. The problem with it is that you can't use multiple interfaces unless you set them up in a lag. Only then you can run them. So, it forces you to use a core type of switch to propagate that management out to the rest of the switches, and then it is running the case at 200. It leaves you with 18 ports on the firewall because it is also a layer-three router that could also be used as a switch, but as soon as you do that, you can't really use them. They could do a little bit more clean up in the way the stacking interface works. Some use cases and the documentation on the FortiLink checking interface are a little outdated. I can find stuff on version 5 or more, but it is hard to find information on some of the newer firmware. The biggest thing I would like to see is some improvement in the switch management feature. I would like to be able to relegate some of the ports, which are on the firewall itself, to act as a switch to take advantage of those ports. Some of these firewalls have clarity ports on them. If I can use those, it would mean that I need to buy two less switches, which saves time. I get why they don't, but I would still like to see it because it would save a little bit of space in the server rack."
"It could use a little bit of improvement in the reporting."
"The access control aspect of the product could be improved."
"They can improve the dynamic of the input of IPs from outside."
"The integration should be improved."
"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."
"It's just not listed as FIPS compliant for where we're at now in government, which is an issue."
"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."
"The product could offer more integrated plugins."
"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."
"I would like better documentation concerning the provided packages and their integration."
"The scalability needs improvement."
"Its interface should be a little bit better."
"The solution would not be suitable for anything large-scale."
"There is room for improvement in SSL inspection."
"I would like to see better SD-WAN performance."
"OPNsense could improve by making the configuration more web-based rather than shell or command-line-based."
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, Sophos UTM, KerioControl, Cisco Secure Firewall and WatchGuard Firebox, whereas OPNsense is most compared with Sophos XG, Untangle NG Firewall, Sophos UTM, IPFire and Cisco Secure Firewall. 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.
