We performed a comparison between McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] and Netgate pfSense based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The solution is extremely reliable."
"The initial installation is very straightforward."
"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."
"The scalability of Fortinet FortiGate is good."
"The next-gen features, the unified threat management capabilities are something that just about everybody is interested in at this point."
"Our project needs to link two sides through the internet. One of these was in Cairo and the other in another city. We used FortiGate as the integrating solution between the two locations, i.e. the Fortinet 30E & 100E."
"The web filtering facility and application control are the most valuable features from the point of view of our clients. The VPN feature is also quite popular amongst our clients. Two-factor authentication is one of the good features in Fortinet. These features are important for the current scenario of security. Security has become a necessity nowadays. With cyber-attacks becoming more common, protecting an organization's data is one of the major tasks. It is also very stable and scalable, and it is very straightforward to configure. Their technical support is also good."
"The ease of setting the solution up is a valuable aspect for us."
"It does give certain protection for everything that is well configured on our McAfee server. We have good protection with it. If we could find a feature and make it work, it would work perfectly, there would be no bugs, and it would be really good."
"It is effective. We have not had any problems."
"It is a stable solution. It is also easy to install and can be deployed and maintained by one team member."
"I am happy with the EPLS, the radius, and I am happy with the captive portal."
"The most valuable features are the VPN and the capture photo."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"A very stable product that lasts over time, easy to understand, and administer."
"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."
"It is a good firewall with good performance."
"One of the features that I would like to have is to do with endpoint production, it should be integrated. For example, the firewall gets notified of any kind of forensic event that needs to be done, such as if there is a ransomware attack and how it originated, all those records have to be available from the firewall, which is not."
"Improvement is needed in the Web Filter quotas to restrict users with allocated quotas."
"The feature which gives us a lot of pain is ASIC architecture."
"The process of configuring firewall rules appears excessively complex."
"Maybe they could make some features more accessible, such as a way to translate directions between two networks that share the same subnets."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"Scalability for Fortinet FortiGate needs to be improved. SD-WAN security for this solution also needs some improvement."
"It needs to improve its ISP load balancing."
"Customer support and AV are both lacking and are really hard to come to you when the product is installed. Those are the two major points that they need to work on."
"There's a bit of a learning curve during the initial implementation."
"Also, simplifying the rules for the GeoIP. Making it simpler to understand would be an improvement."
"There are some bias issues and some intrusions in our network that have to be addressed. So, we're thinking of changing this firewall to something like a professional hardware-enabled firewall."
"The security could be improved."
"I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial."
"The hotspot and the portal feature in this solution are not stable for WiFi access. We use it at least once or twice every day and it crashes. Some modules can be better by improving detection and having new updates. Additionally, we have some issues with clustering and load balancing that could improve."
"Ease of use is a problem for a user who is unfamiliar with this product because, in the interface, everything has to be set manually."
"A way to clean squid cache from the GUI."
Earn 20 points
McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] is rated 7.0, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] writes "For managing multiple MFE firewalls it is incredibly handy but it could be easier for customers to migrate from one version to another. ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] is most compared with , whereas Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and Cisco Secure Firewall.
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.