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 user interface (UI) is very, very good."
"We use a lot of function on the IPS and it works well for us."
"Some of the key features of the solution is that it has good reporting, you can receive many details from the connection, for example, clients and website information."
"The base firewall features are quite valuable to us."
"The signature database and zero-day detection are Fortinet FortiGate's most valuable features."
"It's quite comfortable to handle the FortiGate firewall."
"It enables our organization to become more productive. Also, it protects our NEtWare from viruses and malware."
"The web tutor and automatic rules by schedule are good features."
"The VPN is my favorite feature."
"The firewall sensor is highly effective, and it's easy to deploy. You can deploy pfSense with limited hardware resources. It's not necessary to have an appliance with much RAM to make it work. It's cost-effective and performs well."
"pfSense is a nice product, and I find that there's a lot of information out there. There are some good tutorials on YouTube and other websites with helpful information."
"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."
"A valuable feature is that the solution is open source."
"It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good."
"I can manage it easily by myself."
"It is effective. We have not had any problems."
"The IDS and IPS features are valuable. From the usability perspective, there is a lot of good documentation. As IT professionals, we found it very easy to configure the firewall. It was easy to configure and use."
"OPNsense is easy to use and open source."
"We have been operating here in our lab for several months, and everything appears to be extremely stable."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the Dual WAN in OPNSense, which offers advanced capabilities."
"The solution has high availability."
"The initial implementation process is simple."
"I feel that its valuable features are that it is simple and free."
"I don't really have anything negative to say as far as Fortinet firewalls are concerned. If anything, they can support a user a little bit better. They can stop being so time-sensitive about how much time the support call has taken, and they can help you do it yourself."
"They need faster serviceability and more security features."
"They need to improve their technical support."
"To the best of my knowledge, Fortinet does not have a CASB solution and Fortinet does not have a Zero trust solution."
"I don't like that anything more than very basic reporting is not included."
"The way everything is set up could be easier. Currently, people need a lot of experience and knowledge to administer it and to link it to devices."
"The setup is pretty complex and not easy to implement."
"WAN load-balancing could be a lot better at detecting when a link is poor or inconsistent, and not just flat out dead."
"The solution’s interface must be improved."
"It would be great to add more to security."
"It could use a little bit of improvement in the reporting."
"A way to clean squid cache from the GUI."
"I would like to see pfSense integrate WireGuard. Currently, pfSense uses OpenVPN, and there's nothing wrong with it, but WireGuard is a lot leaner and meaner."
"In an upcoming release, the reporting could be more user-friendly. For example, the reporting in graphs and charts for the host can be cumbersome."
"The main problem with pfSense is that we have to use proxy solutions."
"They can improve the dynamic of the input of IPs from outside."
"The solution would not be suitable for anything large-scale."
"I think the most important thing is that it should be easily accessible, but currently, that doesn't seem to be the case. We need a hardware platform that's based on common standards and open computing principles, which would be like a commodity and benefit us greatly."
"The scalability needs improvement."
"You will need additional training before you can actually start to use it."
"OPNsense showed me some problems when using it in different environments. The problem is integration with a virtual server."
"There are issues with stability and reliability."
"OPNsense could improve by making the configuration more web-based rather than shell or command-line-based."
"I would like to see better SD-WAN performance."
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.