pfSense Review

The product is missing a graphic report implementation tool but performance, scalability and customization are valuable

What is most valuable?

Performance, cost effective, scalable, customizable

How has it helped my organization?

After switching from Cisco, Juniper, Astaro and Microsoft network response improved and more control of packet (for me, pfpacket technology is better than packet filter.)

What needs improvement?

Graphic report implementation tool (now possible with extra software)

For how long have I used the solution?

5+ years.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

No, perfect scalability from 20 to 500 users

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Cisco, Microsoft and when TMG progressively died it was necessary to switch to unix technology, many corporations require low budget and high performance.

How was the initial setup?

The initial approach is very complex because of the multiple functions, but after a short learning curve it is able to handle the standard functions.

What about the implementation team?

In my case, I buy network appliance from Lanner Inc. ltd (watchguard supplier) and deploy the image depending on the desired size and functionality required by the customer.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Identify the most suitable hardware for the required size.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Yes, Astaro and PaloAlto plus Juniper, but the renewal planes (AV, UTM, etc.) are very expensive.
**Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
More pfSense reviews from users
...who work at a Comms Service Provider
...who compared it with Sophos XG
Learn what your peers think about pfSense. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: May 2021.
502,499 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Add a Comment