Compare Juniper SRX vs. pfSense

Juniper SRX is ranked 7th in Firewalls with 24 reviews while pfSense which is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 19 reviews. Juniper SRX is rated 7.6, while pfSense is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Juniper SRX writes "Enables us to integrate a firewall and router in a single product but IPS needs improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of pfSense writes "The terminal gets access to our own server inside the network and if one internet fails, then the other one is still up". Juniper SRX is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco ASA NGFW and Palo Alto Networks WildFire, whereas pfSense is most compared with Sophos UTM, OPNsense and Fortinet FortiGate. See our Juniper SRX vs. pfSense report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Cisco ASA NGFW Logo
129,040 views|52,725 comparisons
Juniper SRX Logo
40,439 views|19,690 comparisons
pfSense Logo
124,536 views|69,504 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about Juniper SRX vs. pfSense and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
359,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros
The most valuable features are the flexibility and level of security that this solution provides.Integration with all the other Cisco tools is valuable.We moved from a legacy firewall to the ASA with FirePOWER, increasing our Internet Edge defense dramatically.Cisco ASA NGFW significantly improves our bank. It protects any high-value products that we use from hackers, viruses, malware, and script-bots. It gives us metrics on network traffic as well as what kind of attacks we are getting from the outside.Right now, Cisco ASA NGFW has given us a lot of improvement. We are planning to move to a new facility and will be a much larger organization.The feature that I found most valuable is the overall stability of the product.The stability of Cisco ASA is excellent compared to other products on the market. Because of our customer experience as an integrator company, our clients never report any performance problems. We have a good performance reputation with Cisco ASA.I would say the Firepower module is most valuable. I'm trying more to transition to this kind firewall. I had to study a little on Palo Alto Networks equipment. There is a lot I have to learn about the difference.

Read more »

I like the routing and firewall features.The solution's stability is very good.I've found the security features, such as IDS and the VPN most valuable.The deployment is quite easy and fast.It helped us with its routing capabilities which eased the cost, because otherwise I would have had to take a router and firewall, and then integrate it. With this, however, it was an integration of firewall and routing services all together in a single product. That was one thing that I loved about it.The most valuable feature is the virtualization because it can be used for customers who are using the mobile data network to request a private connection to a remote site.There is a lot of flexibility in how you can commit, check, and back out of a configuration.On a scale from one to ten, one being the worst and ten being the best I'd give Juniper SRX an overall rating of eight because of its' competitive price.

Read more »

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.This solution has helped our organization by protecting our network from attacks.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.My company mainly works in the health and educational domain, schools and universities. I prevent the improper use of content from schools and universities. I defend the medical records for the patients in our hospitals. That is the main use case for me for the firewall.We generally use it because it's cheap. When we need something more robust we use Barracuda and Sony Wireless Routers. For certain clients, we use pfSense because it's compatible with the VoIP platform.Super easy to manage. Anyone who has been working with firewalls can handle it.There is good documentation with a fantastic community and enterprise support.The ability to perform packet captures on the command line and via the GUI is useful for diagnosing problems.

Read more »

Cons
There was an error in the configuration, related to our uplink switches, that caused us to contact technical support, and it took a very long time to resolve the issue.With regards to stability, we had a critical bug come out during our evaluation... not good.The product would be improved if the GUI could be brought into the 21st Century.Cisco should improve its user interface design. There is a deep learning curve to the product if you are a newcomer.There is no support here in Georgia. If something goes wrong, support is not always very helpful with the other firewalls or other products.One of my main concerns, an area that could use improvement is in adjusting the need to buy a license to enable features.Usually, the customers are satisfied, but I am going to recommend that all clients upgrade to FirePOWER management. I want Cisco to improve the feature called anti-spam. We use a Cisco only email solution, that's why we need the anti-spam on email facility.The installation and integration of Cisco ASA with FirePOWER can be improved. The management with Fortigate is easier than Cisco ASA on FirePOWER. The management side of Cisco ASA can be improved so it can be more easily configured and used.

Read more »

The workplace management console needs improvement. It should be a little bit more developed. Also, the interface needs a bit more improvement.The big thing is performance. With all the features turned on it slows down.In terms of other features, I'd like to see a web filter, 10 point control, application control and a DNA filter in the next release.The GUI needs improvement.IPS is one that I would definitely want to be improved. I would also like SSL VPN to be integrated.The Juniper product has to improve in terms of innovation.It's a good stable firewall, but it's nowhere near what it needs to be for a next-generation type firewall.Improvements can be made to the GUI. The GUI can be improved by creating policies to handle IPS requirements. The configuration should be a one-step process. This would make it easier to complete the setup to register the time of operation.

Read more »

We would like to see ready-made profiles to cover most users' needs.This product needs improvements with respect to reporting and auditing.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.pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly.I would like to see SD1 integration into the software. That would be fantastic.It needs better parsing of logs. At the moment, you have to use an external server for this if you want a deeper analysis.I would like to see multiple DNS servers running on individual interfaces.They need to take care of a few issues with the GUI. Occasionally, they don't update the configurations properly. I would also like them to firm up the VPN aspect of the software a bit and provide better monitoring software.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
Watch out for hidden licensing and incredibly high annual maintenance costs.We paid about $7,000 for the Cisco firewall, plus another small Cisco router and the lead switch. It was under the combined license. It's a final agreement.The cost is a big factor for us. This is why we are using it only in our restricted area. They are very much higher than their competitors in the market.Licensing is expensive compared to other solutions.Pricing is high, but it is essentially a corporate decision.The cost is a bit high compared to other solutions in the market.Cisco recently has become very expensive.The cost is a bit higher than other competitive solutions on the market.

Read more »

The price of this solution is more than other products, but it's stable, and the technical support is better than I have seen with others.There was no additional licensing cost because there were no IPS services. It was just a firewall IP circuit router so they have the default licensing. We just need to renew the support yearly.While the price of support is expensive, the price of the solution, itself, is not.The pricing is perhaps half, probably forty percent, of Cisco.The direct support with Juniper is expensive. When you stop using the solution and miss one year of payments, if you want the support back on a specific node, they ask you to pay for the year that you haven't used the node.In terms of pricing, Juniper is in the middle. The most expensive firewall is Palo Alto. If a customer wants the cheapest price they should go for FortiGate. Juniper is in between these products.It has a low price.It is not that expensive.

Read more »

All costs are low compared to other solutions. The hardware is stable and cheap.There is no licensing fee except for the enterprise support, if you want it.This solution was about $150,000 cheaper than the closest competitor over a three year period.In comparison to a lot of other solutions, it's very inexpensive.It is a great solution that is economical. It scales so the cost per protected MB is almost free.It is a free solution.It is economical (i.e., free).From Sonic Wall, their price is much higher, because for every feature that you want to add, you have to pay. I can do the same things with pfSense, but everything is included in one price.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Firewalls solutions are best for your needs.
359,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 37% of the time.
Compared 31% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 22% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 14% of the time.
Also Known As
Cisco ASA, Adaptive Security Appliance, ASASRX
Learn
Cisco
Juniper
pfSense
Video Not Available
Overview

Adaptive Security Appliance (ASA) is Cisco's end-to-end software solution and core operating system that powers the Cisco ASA product series. This software solution provides enterprise-level firewall capabilities for all types of ASA products, including blades, standalone appliances and virtual devices. Adaptive Security Appliance provides protection to organizations of all sizes, and allows end-users to access information securely anywhere, at any time, and through any device.

Adaptive Security Appliance is also fully compatible with other key security technologies, and so provides organizations with an all-encompassing security solution.

Block more threats and quickly mitigate those that do breach your defenses with the industry’s first threat-focused NGFW.

High-performance security with advanced, integrated threat intelligence, delivered on the industry's most scalable and resilient platform. SRX Series gateways set new benchmarks with 100GbE interfaces and feature Express Path technology, which enables up to 1 Tbps performance for the data center.Providing comprehensive network security solutions for the enterprise, large business and SOHO, pfSense solutions bring together the most advanced technology available to make protecting your network easier than ever before. Our products are built on the most reliable platforms and are engineered to provide the highest levels of performance, stability and confidence.
Offer
Learn more about Cisco ASA NGFW
Learn more about Juniper SRX
Learn more about pfSense
Sample Customers
There are more than one million Adaptive Security Appliances deployed globally. Top customers include First American Financial Corp., Genzyme, Frankfurt Airport, Hansgrohe SE, Rio Olympics, The French Laundry, Rackspace, and City of Tomorrow.7-Eleven, AARNet Pty Ltd, Allegro Networks, alltours GmbH, Apollo Hotel Papendrecht, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Atlantech Online, Availity, Bajaj Capital, Baloise Insurance, BancABC, BAS Group, Black Lotus, Blue Box, Borealis, Carilion Clinic, Catholic Health System, CATV, Champlain College, Chinas Ministry of Railways, China University of Mining and Technology (CUMT), Cloud Dynamics, CloudSeeds, Cloudwatt, CODONiS, Colt Technology Services, Cork Internet Exchange, CSS Versicherung AG, CyrusOne, Danish Crown, Deloitte Belgium, Department of Energy, Divona Telecom, DQE Communications, DreamHost, European Government Agency, Expedient, Financial Market Information Services Provider, Fluidata, Fonality, Fox Sports, Global Financial Institution, Global Investment Bank, Global Investment Company, Energy Sciences Network (ESnet), Goethe University, HEAnet, High Performance Networks Inc., HillenbrandNerds On Site Inc., RKC Development Inc., Expertech, Fisher's Technology, Ncisive, Consulting, CPURX, Vaughn's Computer House Calls, Imeretech LLC, Digital Crisis, Carolina Digital Phone, Technigogo Technology Services, The Simple Solution, SwiftecITInc, Rocky Mountain Tech Team, Free Range Geeks, Alaska Computer Geeks, Lark Information Technology, Renaissance Systems Inc., Cutting Edge Computers, Caretech LLC, GoVanguard, Network Touch Ltd, P.C. Solutions.Net, Vision Voice and Data Systems LLC, Montgomery Technologies, Techforce, Concero Networks, ASONInc, CPS Electronics and Consulting, Darkwire.net LLC, IT Specialists, MBS-Net Inc., VOICE1 LLC, Advantage Networking Inc., Powerhouse Systems, Doxa Multimedia Inc., Pro Computer Service, Virtual IT Services, A&J Computers Inc., Envision IT LLC, CommunicaONE Inc., Bone Computer Inc., Amax Engineering Corporation, QPG Ltd. Co., IT 101 Inc., Perfect Cloud Solutions, Applied Technology Group Inc., The Digital Sun Group LLC, Firespring
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm19%
Manufacturing Company12%
Comms Service Provider10%
University7%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider21%
Financial Services Firm14%
Manufacturing Company11%
Transportation Company8%
REVIEWERS
Comms Service Provider53%
Financial Services Firm18%
Energy/Utilities Company12%
Retailer6%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Comms Service Provider47%
Media Company15%
Venture Capital & Private Equity Firm7%
Financial Services Firm6%
REVIEWERS
University19%
Comms Service Provider14%
Energy/Utilities Company10%
Construction Company10%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Manufacturing Company14%
Financial Services Firm14%
Comms Service Provider13%
Individual & Family Service11%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business38%
Midsize Enterprise26%
Large Enterprise36%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business42%
Midsize Enterprise25%
Large Enterprise33%
REVIEWERS
Small Business42%
Midsize Enterprise18%
Large Enterprise39%
REVIEWERS
Small Business67%
Midsize Enterprise20%
Large Enterprise13%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business49%
Midsize Enterprise40%
Large Enterprise11%
Find out what your peers are saying about Juniper SRX vs. pfSense and other solutions. Updated: July 2019.
359,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.
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.
Sign Up with Email