We performed a comparison between Palo Alto Networks 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: pfSense has an edge in this comparison as it is a free, open-source solution while Palo Alto Networks is considered expensive by its users.
"The product is easy to use and is stable. The SV1 functionality is a benefit."
"The solution is highly scalable because they have devices that can handle a large amount of traffic."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of use."
"We use a lot of function on the IPS and it works well for us."
"It's great for capturing the traffic and troubleshooting it."
"A strong point of FortiGate is the graphical interface is complete and easy to use."
"The CLI and GUI do a good job of putting a lot at your fingertips."
"Easy to implement, and it is also reliable."
"This solution has helped our organization by protecting our network from attacks."
"I like the connectivity to the open VPN. It's very smooth."
"The concurrent users are perfect for us."
"Stability has been excellent. We have experienced no issues; it never fails."
"The flexibility of adding new kinds of services without spending any money can't be beaten."
"I like pfSense's reports and how I can control access to the policies on the firewall."
"I like pfSense's security features."
"I handle the scanning for the finance department. I recently encountered an issue with the PCL bills, our company bills. I resolved the matter, cleared the bill, and received calls regarding it using pfsense.The user interface is extremely user-friendly, which is why we use it across various plant sites. Our IT representatives at the plants find it easy to use and manage because of its straightforward interface."
"The solution is scalable"
"The performance of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is the most valuable feature."
"Application control, IPS, and sandboxing towards the cloud are the most valuable features. It is a very user-friendly product with a very easy-to-use interface."
"The management options are good."
"DNS Security is a good feature because, in the real world with web threats, you can block all web threats and bad sites. DNS Security helps to prevent those threats. It's also very helpful with Zero-day attacks because DNS Security blocks all DNS requests before any antivirus would know that such requests contain a virus or a threat to your PC or your network."
"The Unified Threat Management (UTM) module, which consists of the basic firewall and IPS services, is what the majority of our customers use in Palo Alto Firewall."
"There are many valuable features within the solution. This includes security, a user-friendly firewall, antivirus, and global protection."
"Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls have a very nice interface for logging and monitoring. I find it easy to navigate and use, and the interface is organized as well. I can find answers within a couple of hours and have seen time savings."
"The biggest "gotcha" is that if the client purchases what they call the UTM shared bundle, which has unified threat management on both, it's not as easy to manage if you have more than one firewall."
"In the next release, I would like to see the interface simplified to be more user-friendly."
"There is a lot of improvement needed with SSL-VPN."
"I haven't had a single issue since using Fortinet."
"Fortinet FortiGate can improve the integration with Active Directory. Additionally, I would like to have a Cloud Controller, such as they do in the Cisco Meraki solution."
"The customization could be improved. Cisco, for example, is much better at this. They need to work to be at least as good as they are."
"I would like Fortinet to add more automation to FortiGate."
"It would be nice if backups could more easily migrate between different models."
"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."
"pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly."
"I tried pfSense, and it has a big issue with file system consistency, and this is what drove me to OPNsense. The file system stability is quite a big issue for us. We have a lot of outages related to power issues, and OPNsense is much more stable on this side."
"The access control aspect of the product could be improved."
"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."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"Ultimately, we'd like something stronger, and something that can handle threats better in real-time."
"The solution requires a lot of administration."
"The reports it provides are not helpful."
"This is a difficult product to manage, so the administrator needs to have a good knowledge of it, otherwise, they will not be able to handle it properly."
"The initial configuration is complicated to set up."
"The pricing of the solution is quite high. It's one of the most expensive firewall solutions on the market."
"Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls need better training modules. You have to do a lot of reading prior to watching the training videos, and it's good for people who are really into it. However, often you want to use a video for a TID. You want to see how to do something rather than spend 30 minutes reading and then another 30 minutes watching the class. As a result, I take third-party training classes rather than Palo Alto's training because they are a lot better."
"The solution could be simplified."
"Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls don't provide a unified platform that natively integrates all security capabilities. It's missing some features for geofencing and understanding locations."
"The only downside of Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, in my opinion, is the relatively higher price compared to Cisco FortiGate. This is especially noticeable when deploying basic configurations and considering the cost of licenses."
More Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls Pricing and Cost Advice →
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is ranked 6th in Firewalls with 162 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is rated 8.6. 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 NG Firewalls writes "We get reports back from WildFire on a minute-by-minute basis". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Meraki MX, whereas Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls is most compared with Check Point NGFW, Azure Firewall, Meraki MX, Sophos XG and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Netgate pfSense vs. Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls 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.