We performed a comparison between Netgate pfSense and Sangfor NGAF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Customers want to load balance more than eight lines or six internet lines. FortiGate is the only solution that can accomplish this."
"Customers are more inclined towards FortiGate because of application control, web filtering, and anti-spam features. The support from the FortiGate team is good, and price-wise, it is affordable."
"The multi-tenancy feature is most valuable. It integrates very well with FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer."
"The most valuable features are that it is very simple to configure and to manage."
"The SD-WAN is the most valuable feature."
"FortiGate SD-WAN facilitated a smooth transition for our customers between their two internet service providers, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity without any downtime."
"SSL-VPN is very useful for us and has been very reliable."
"Whenever we raise a complaint with FortiGate, their response and resolution times are minimal."
"The solution is very easy to use and has a very nice GUI."
"Good basic firewall features."
"The initial setup was simple and fast."
"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."
"It is very easy to use. The interface is quite understandable. There is a good community, and I can take over at any time I want. If there is anything wrong with it, I could just reinstall the whole thing and start all over again, and I'll be up again in less than a few minutes"
"It has a good web cache. I used to use a DHCP server and DNS server. For my company, I use pfSense as a load balancing application."
"The scalability is very good, where you can do an HA configuration and then bring in another box, if necessary."
"The plugins or add-ons are most valuable. Sometimes, they are free of charge, and sometimes, you have to pay for them, but you can purchase or download very valuable plugins or add-ons to perform internal testing of your network and simulate a denial-of-service attack or whichever attack you want to simulate. You can also remote and monitor your network and see where the gap is. Did you forget a printer port? Most attacks at the moment are happening through printers, and they can tell you immediately that you forgot to close the port of the printer. There are more than one million printers that are in danger, and everybody knows that hackers are using them to enter the network. So, you can download plugins to protect your network."
"I think Sangfor NGAF is more valuable than Cisco products because of its simplicity and ease of management. If I compare it with Palo Alto and Cisco, both are quite complex products. And if I compare it with FortiGate firewalls from Fortinet, I have also used all these products. Fortinet and Sangfor NGAF are similar products because the applications behind the application and policy layers are almost identical."
"Sangfor has the best capabilities for securing connections, securing web browsers, securing servers, and general threat protection."
"The most valuable features are the WAN optimization, the internet access gateway (IAG), and the central console, which allows us to implement on their firewall."
"The most valuable feature of Sangfor NGAF is its integration."
"The price versus value is good because the solution is less expensive than Sophos, Fortinet, or SonicWall."
"SSL VPN is the best feature."
"Particularly good in the DPI where we can inspect inbound and outbound traffic."
"It's a very simple to use product."
"It is very expensive, and their support is not very good. I hope that their technical support will be better in the future."
"Bandwidth usage in reporting could be improved for Fortinet FortiGate."
"Fortinet FortiGate should improve the VPN tokens."
"The platform's interface could improve."
"It claims it does DLP, but the degree and level of controls are very basic."
"The feedback that I have received is that the performance could be better, and the user experience is not as good compared to a previous solution we used. It could be more user-friendly. Of course, it still works fine for our operations."
"Fortinet FortiGate needs to improve the protection, it did not prevent us from being attacked. Additionally, Fortinet FortiGate could provide more features for WAF devices. I should not have to purchase two solutions, it would be a benefit to combine these features into one solution."
"The pricing could be a bit better, especially when you consider how they have the most basic offering priced."
"User interface is a little clumsy."
"It could use a little bit of improvement in the reporting."
"pfSense has some limitations in detecting site sessions. We want to control internet usage based on sites and their content, and pfSense doesn't perform this function."
"The user interface can be improved to make it easier to add more features. And pfSense could be better integrated with other solutions, like antivirus."
"pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly."
"Network monitoring and device inventory could use some improvements. I'm using SpiceWorks for this because it never really worked in pfSense."
"Many people have problems setting up the web cache for the web system."
"When I checked other packages, it seems they use different tools that are installed on the PSS for functionality. They rely on third-party tools, unlike Fortinet, for example, which has its own tools. In comparison, we also use third-party tools on pfSense. For example, we had a situation where we needed a tool to identify authorized users, and when I searched for a solution, I found a third-party tool. However, using such tools may come with additional costs."
"The solution has too many bugs and these slow down the implementation."
"An area of improvement for Sangfor NGAF could be in the field of reporting and logging."
"Sangfor has recently increased their prices."
"The support for YouTube or the Internet is not enough."
"The interface and user experience are horrible."
"An area for improvement would be the number of ports defined on the box. In the next release, I would like them to develop their provisioning stage of enrolling end devices."
"The reporting and log management could be improved."
"The support offered by the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required. The knowledge levels and response time of the support team need improvement."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 20th in Firewalls with 31 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 8.0. 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 Sangfor NGAF writes "Affordable, easy to configure firewall with fast, responsive support". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Sophos XG, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Check Point NGFW, Fortinet FortiOS and Huawei NGFW. See our Netgate pfSense vs. Sangfor NGAF 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.