We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiGate-VM and pfSense based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Features: Fortinet FortiGate-VM is highly regarded for its robust security features, including geofencing, firewalling, IPS, and antivirus. Additionally, users appreciate its intuitive interface. pfSense is praised for its ability to block IPs effectively and its user-friendly dashboards. Furthermore, its open-source nature and cost-effectiveness are also seen as valuable attributes.
Fortinet FortiGate-VM needs enhancements in key activation processes, log management, cloud management, MFA offerings, web filter options, application inspection, IPsec failover, monitoring tool, hardening guidelines, product availability, setup and configuration, firmware updates, GUI capabilities, and technical support. pfSense requires improvements in instructional videos, web interface clarity, stability, mobile application, VPN functionality, reporting, integration, WAF knowledge, URL filtering, centralized management, GUI version for SMBs, sandboxing, documentation, user-friendliness for non-IT users, configuration processes, and SD-WAN integration.
Service and Support: Customers have provided mixed feedback on the customer service of Fortinet FortiGate-VM. Some commend the support team for their prompt responses and expertise, while others express a need for improvement in technical support. pfSense's customer service also receives mixed reviews as well. Certain users appreciate the technical assistance they received during the setup and configuration process, while others highlight limited support for the open-source nature of the product.
Ease of Deployment: The setup process for Fortinet FortiGate-VM is generally easy and straightforward, with support and assistance available. It may require knowledge of Fortinet products. pfSense is considered user-friendly and intuitive, with a straightforward installation. However, some users recommend clearer guidance or a configuration wizard.
Pricing: Fortinet's cost is competitive and encompasses licensing fees, whereas pfSense provides a free open-source solution, albeit with a learning cost. Fortinet's pricing is adaptable and may rise with scaling, while pfSense does not entail additional fees for updates.
ROI: Fortinet FortiGate-VM provides enhanced security and stability, leading to a favorable return on investment. It is important to select the appropriate size initially to prevent any monetary drawbacks. pfSense is a cost-efficient option that enables businesses to maximize profits and attain a substantial ROI.
Comparison Results: Fortinet FortiGate-VM is the preferred product when compared to pfSense. Users appreciate Fortinet FortiGate-VM for its strong security capabilities, such as geofencing, firewalling, IPS, antivirus, and intrusion prevention systems. They also find it easy to use, deploy, and scale, thanks to its intuitive interface.
"It enables our organization to become more productive. Also, it protects our NEtWare from viruses and malware."
"It increases security posture and is helpful for firewall reporting, intrusion protection, web filtering, and SD-WAN implementation."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ability to work in proxy mode, which other solutions, such as Palo Alto cannot. There are some features that are better that come at no extra license or subscriptions cost, such as basic SD-WAN. The DLT is useful, other solutions have the same feature too, such as Palo Alto."
"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."
"Good performance, stability, and virtual domain ability."
"Whenever we raise a complaint with FortiGate, their response and resolution times are minimal."
"The customization potential is quite impressive."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiGate is security. They are known for efficiency and are on the top of Gartner Quadrant reviews. Fortinet FortiGate has an easy-to-use platform with a good graphical interface. The configuration is simple and the solution provides an overall good layer of security."
"The thing that I like the most is that they're very willing to work with us to resolve issues that they haven't taken care of before in their product."
"FortiGate-VM's firewall is excellent."
"It is highly scalable because it has a mesh architecture that allows consistent policies."
"Initial setup is very straightforward with a wizard, if needed."
"The ease of access and user-friendly setup is a valuable feature. Fortinet proves to be particularly straightforward to configure, offering simplicity without complexity. Moreover, visibility is easily attainable due to certain factors. Price, implementation, and budget considerations play a role. When it comes to Cisco implementation, the process tends to be more intricate, which many customers find unfavourable for their business needs."
"GitDM, like FortiGate VM, provides similar features to FortiGate appliances or cloud solutions. However, FortiGate VM is more suitable for heavy traffic and inspection compared to GitDM. Unfortunately, FortiGate VM lacks a dedicated SPU for inspection, and all features rely on CPU and RAM."
"The solution's initial setup process was very easy."
"While the stability maybe isn't quite to the level of Cisco, it is a very cost-effective solution. It's cheap compared to Cisco."
"I especially like the VPN part. It works like a charm."
"Super easy to manage. Anyone who has been working with firewalls can handle it."
"I like pfSense's reports and how I can control access to the policies on the firewall."
"It is much simpler than other solutions such as Fortinet."
"My technicians find the pfSense's web interface very useful. It is very easy to use. pfSense is very reliable and stable. We like the OpenVPN clients that can be deployed using pfSense very much."
"The tools' most valuable feature is load balancing."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"I had some outages in the network and we provide services for our company. We sell mobile credits. The terminal gets access to our own server inside the network and if one internet fails, then the other one is still up and we have a back-up link on the devices."
"I think the only issue that needs improvement is the interface."
"Application management can be improved."
"There is room for improvement related to the logging and reporting aspect."
"It would be nice if FortiGate incorporated some built-in endpoint protection features. I would also like a built-in SOC dashboard for managing multiple Fortinet firewalls."
"It is quite new for us, and we need to go more in-depth into the monitoring tools. It provides different features that we need to do what we want. So far, it is okay for us. In terms of improvement, in the future, they can provide a faster implementation of features. Some of the features are first available in other solutions. Fortinet sometimes takes a little bit longer than other solutions, such as Check Point, to implement new features."
"Compared to some other products, the DLP is not at par for the moment."
"The UI could be improved."
"It should come integrated or have its own type of network monitor tool in a module. There should just be one package, and you are good to go."
"There are certain GUI features that should be present but are not."
"Deployment can be difficult and they could dispense with reliance on FortiManager and FortiAnalyzer."
"They could provide more integration options with different platforms."
"The costs could be lowered."
"The performance could be better. Some features need to have quality control when the switch is working. The dedicated bandwidth for some users is not reliable."
"We are experiencing a failed login issue. There should also be improvements in functionalities we store to enhance our services."
"The product does not have a good graphical interface."
"The GUI could be improved."
"It requires more attention to provide a better alternative for open source to small government or educational institutions with reduced budgets in terms of technology."
"We would like to see ready-made profiles to cover most users' needs."
"There's a bit of a learning curve during the initial implementation."
"The Netgate forums and community don’t provide extensive discussions and topics related to every pfSense service."
"I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces."
"The GUI could use more “bells and whistles”. It's got plenty of info for a Sysadmin but some people like shiny things."
"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."
"The interface is not very shiny and attractive."
Fortinet FortiGate-VM is ranked 9th in Firewalls with 113 reviews while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. Fortinet FortiGate-VM is rated 8.4, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiGate-VM writes "An easy-to-manage and configure tool that provides ample documentation to help with the setup phase". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". Fortinet FortiGate-VM is most compared with Azure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, Fortinet FortiOS, OPNsense and KerioControl, whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, KerioControl, Sophos UTM and Cisco Secure Firewall. See our Fortinet FortiGate-VM vs. Netgate pfSense 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.
