We performed a comparison between Netgate pfSense and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Firewalls solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of the solution are SD-WAN, filtering testing applications, web filtering, and the new VPN."
"A strong point of FortiGate is that the graphical interface is complete and easy to use, especially if we think there is a list of operations that we are able to perform inside."
"The CLI and GUI do a good job of putting a lot at your fingertips."
"The main benefit is the grouping of our security monitoring."
"Virtual Domains (VDOMs) are a feature that we found valuable."
"The CLI is robust and powerful, enabling rapid, consistent changes via SSH."
"Their proxy-based inspection is responsive and secure."
"It is easy to use. We chose this product for the possibility to have virtual domains (VDOMs). We are building another company in the group, and we would like to split the firewalling rules and policies between these two companies. Each company would be able to manage its own policies and security rules, which is an advantage of Fortinet FortiGate. We can define VDOMs, and every company can manage its own VDOM as if it has its own physical firewall, but in fact, we would be using the same physical appliance because we are also using the same internet lines. So, it allows us to reuse the existing resources without the disadvantage of having to compromise on policies and security. Each company can choose its own way of working."
"The solution is very easy to use and configure."
"The solution has good customization abilities and plenty of features."
"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."
"It is easy to use and has integrity with other systems, such as proxies and quality of service."
"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."
"The initial setup was simple and fast."
"Easy to deploy and easy to use."
"We've found the stability to be very good overall."
"The VM-Series scalability is fast and easy to implement, improving our security posture as our Azure network grows."
"The solution enables organizations to enforce policies."
"The most effective features for threat prevention are application-based prevention and WildFire. These features cover various threats, such as ransomware, malware, etc. They provide real-time visibility. By applying appropriate policies, threats can be blocked."
"It is an easy-to-scale product."
"The VM-Series reports how much bandwidth a particular IP is using. You don't need to regularly log into a website, like a Cisco command, to see what kind of ACL it's getting. There isn't an ACL use portal event. You can go there and see how much my ACL has been getting me."
"The most valuable features are security and support."
"We now know a lot more detail about what our users are doing on the network."
"The most valuable feature is the CLI."
"I would like to have logs, monitoring, and reporting for a month without extra fees."
"The command line is complicated, and the interface could be better."
"There are a lot of bugs I have found in the solution and it is difficult to upgrade. These areas need improvement."
"The improvement is related to logs. Instead of the CLI, we should be able to have more insights into the logs of the firewall in the GUI."
"The routing capability on the FortiGate devices has room for improvement."
"If they had better integration with security products, such as Cisco ISE or Rapid Threat Containment, then it would be an improvement."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by adding FortiAnalyzer to its solution, we should not have to use another solution. FortiAnalyzer can provide more detailed information."
"The platform's interface could improve."
"There could be a way to remote to it through a mobile app. You can always browse through your browser on your mobile phone or tablet, but it would be good to have a dedicated app. I understand that iOS and Android developers are expensive, but there should be a mobile app."
"It was difficult to configure our web printer through the solution. This process could be easier. Additionally, integration with SD-WAN solution."
"The GUI could use improvements, though it is manageable."
"It would be great to add more to security."
"They can improve the dynamic of the input of IPs from outside."
"pfSense could improve by having a sandboxing feature that I have seen in SonicWall. However, maybe it is available I am not aware of it."
"User interface is a little clumsy."
"Web interface could be enhanced and more user friendly."
"The DLP functionality or data classification can be improved in the solution's basic firewalling."
"There is no proper support channel to follow up on cases."
"Palo Alto is that it is really bad when it comes to technical support."
"The disadvantage with Palo Alto is that they don't have a cloud-based solution that includes a secure web gateway."
"We have ran into issues with Palo Alto’s limitations for resolving large IP lists from DNS lookups, as well as the antivirus interfering with App-ID."
"The solution needs to have more easily searchable details or documentation about it online, so it's easier to Google if you have queries."
"It would be helpful if we had a direct number for the support manager or the supporting engineer. That would be better than having to email every time because there would be less wait."
"The product needs improvement in their Secure Access Service Edge."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Firewalls with 52 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series 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 Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Cisco Secure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls and Juniper vSRX. See our Netgate pfSense vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series report.
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.