We performed a comparison between Netgate pfSense and Trellix Network Detection and Response based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The virtual firewall feature is the most valuable. We have around 1,500 firewalls. We did not buy individual hardware, and the virtual firewalls made sense because we don't have to keep on buying the hardware. FortiGate is easier to use as compared to Checkpoint devices. It is user friendly and has a good UI. You don't need much expertise to work on this firewall. You don't need to worry much about DCLA, commands, and things like that."
"It's inexpensive compared to some of the other technology out there."
"The web tutor and automatic rules by schedule are good features."
"We use the filtering feature the most. It has filtering and inbuilt securities. We can create customized rules to define which users can access a particular type of site. We can create policies inside the firewall."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"It can expand easily."
"It is a safe product."
"I'm pretty happy with its reliability. It is also very scalable."
"The most valuable features are the VPN and the capture photo."
"It is easy to use and has integrity with other systems, such as proxies and quality of service."
"This solution has increased the level of security, given us more control, provided a deep insight into network traffic, and is a great VPN solution."
"A free firewall that is a good network security appliance."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Improved service performance and availability through redundancy."
"I use pfSense because it gives me the flexibility to greatly expand basic firewall features."
"The intrusion detection feature is the most valuable. It is an open-source firewall, so there is a lot of material on it. I also find the open VPN capability very nice. It is pretty customizable. The clustering and the high availability are the two biggest things to be able to get out of a firewall."
"The features that I find most valuable are the MIR (Mandiant Incident Response) for checks on our inbound security."
"The server appliance is good."
"The most valuable feature is the network security module."
"The installation phase was easy."
"Before FireEye, most of the times that an incident would happen nobody would be able to find out where or why the incident occurred and that the system is compromised. FireEye is a better product because if the incident already happened I know that the breach is there and that the system is compromised so we can take appropriate action to prevent anything from happening."
"The solution can scale."
"Support is very helpful and responsive."
"The MVX Engine seems to be very capable against threats and the way it handles APTs is impressive."
"The scalability could be better."
"I don't like that anything more than very basic reporting is not included."
"The support is the main thing that needs to be improved."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having a frequent ask questions(FAQ) area for people to receive quick answers to popular questions. Additionally, it would be beneficial to have an SMS notification feature. For example, if you cannot access your email you could receive an SMS message."
"NGN, reporting and controls."
"The monitor and the visibility, in this proxy, is very weak."
"The sniffing packets or packet captures, can be simplified and improved because it's a little confusing."
"I would like to have logs, monitoring, and reporting for a month without extra fees."
"It is not centrally managed, where you log into the website and can see all your services there. We would like to be able to see is all the configurations from a central interface on all our pfSenses."
"It could use a little bit of improvement in the reporting."
"The router monitoring needs improvement when compared with Sonicwall."
"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."
"pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly."
"The interface is not very shiny and attractive."
"This solution is good for small businesses but it is not as stable as other competitors such as Fortinet."
"Adjustment in the interfaces: I had to adjust those interfaces manually and of course that is a great feature that you can restore it but it is immediately also one point for improvement. If you don't have to adjust, if it's just stamped and it works, that's great."
"It is an expensive solution."
"It is very expensive, the price could be better."
"The world is currently shifting to AI, but FIreEye is not following suit."
"It would be very helpful if there were better integration with other solutions from other vendors, such as Fortinet and Palo Alto."
"I heard that FireEye recently was hacked, and a lot of things were revealed. We would like FireEye to be more secure as an organization. FireEye has to be more protective because it is one of the most critical devices that we are using in our environment. They have a concept called SSL decryption, but that is only the packet address. We would like FireEye to also do a lot of decryption inside the packet. Currently, FireEye only does encryption and decryption of the header, but we would like them to do encryption and decryption of the entire packet."
"There is a lot of room for Improvement in the offering, from cost to functionality. It is pretty straightforward to implement which is an advantage. However, it falls short in pricing, detection capabilities, and, most importantly, reporting and policy management."
"The product's integration capabilities are an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The initial setup was complex because of the nature of our environment. When it comes to the type of applications and functions which we were looking at in terms of identifying malicious threats, there would be some level of complexity, if we were doing it right."
More Trellix Network Detection and Response Pricing and Cost Advice →
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Trellix Network Detection and Response is ranked 9th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 35 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Trellix Network Detection and Response 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 Trellix Network Detection and Response writes "Blocks traffic and DDoS attacks ". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Trellix Network Detection and Response is most compared with Fortinet FortiSandbox, Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Zscaler Internet Access, Vectra AI and Symantec Advanced Threat Protection.
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.
