We performed a comparison between McAfee StoneGate [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 GUI is good."
"It has improved our security capabilities."
"It has very easy management and an amazing ETM configuration."
"The base firewall features are quite valuable to us."
"It is easy to manage, and it doesn't need much knowledge from the team. It is a stable device, and there are many features that are included out of the box."
"I'm pretty happy with its reliability. It is also very scalable."
"It can expand easily."
"Virtual Domains (VDOMs) are a feature that we found valuable."
"We did not have issues with scalabiliy."
"It works well with a highly-active cluster."
"The initial setup is not complex."
"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."
"I have found the firewall portion for the blocking most valuable."
"The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, are the most important."
"It is a better firewall than others and it has better features."
"Some of the terminologies were more familiar to me than it was when I first encountered Cisco."
"This solution has helped our organization by protecting our network from attacks."
"We like the fact that the product is open-source. It's free to use. There are no costs associated with it."
"Technical support could be better. You don't always get the level of help you need right away."
"When we cluster the two Fortinet FortiGate boxes together we have some issues."
"There is a lot of improvement needed with SSL-VPN."
"The user interface could be improved to make it less confusing and easier to set up."
"We would like to see better pricing."
"The support is the main thing that needs to be improved."
"One area for improvement is the performance on bandwidth demands for smaller devices, as well as better web filtering."
"The central management for the FortiGate Fortinet Firewall needs improvement. They have the manager to do the essential management for both SD-WAN and for the security policy. They should also improve the SD-WAN function."
"After some experience with the solution, we had to do some redesign, but generally, we were happy with the product."
"The configuration of the solution is a bit difficult."
"It should integrate with LDAP, Active Directory, etc, to improve the way in which the traces and connections of each IP, or user connected through the firewall, are shown."
"Perhaps the documentation is not clear and because it is supported in the community there is no basic documentation."
"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."
"My only observation is about the quality of the IPSec logs, which are difficult to interpret and are poor in filters."
"If you want to take advantage of all of the solution's options, you need to have a bit of a technical background. It's not for a layperson."
"The VPN feature of the solution could improve by adding better functionality and providing easier configure ability."
"Could be simplified for new users."
Earn 20 points
McAfee StoneGate [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls while Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews. McAfee StoneGate [EOL] is rated 7.0, while Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of McAfee StoneGate [EOL] writes "The HA cluster had issues during deployment, but the solution gives us better application control than with our previous solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Netgate pfSense writes "User-friendly, easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise". McAfee StoneGate [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.
