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."This version is stable. I don't have any issues with this solution, in our environment, it works well."
"The web filtering feature and the intrusion protection system are the most valuable. It is a resilient appliance. I never had an issue with it in terms of any security breaches."
"It is simple to manage, and there are a lot of functionalities in the same box."
"Secure, user-friendly, stable, and scalable network security solution. Installation is straightforward."
"Fortigate is very scalable to serve our customers' needs. We have scaled already from fifty to more than a hundred instances of Fortinet FortiGate. Around 20 staff are required for deployment and maintenance, mostly engineers."
"The response is very quick and they can visually resolve our problems in a short period."
"FortiGate improved our security. It's one of the best hardware firewalls."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate are the ease of use and the UI. It has always provided me with what I needed. I have no need for additional costs that other solutions have, such as Sophos."
"The performance and functionality are good."
"One of the advantages of pfSense is that it is very easy to work with. It is a very good open-source solution, and it works really well. pfSense provides a complete package. For some features, it could be the first solution in the world. It is a very good alternative in the market for a firewall solution. You don't need to go to Cisco or other brands with expensive firewalls. pfSense also allows us to offer some support services."
"My technicians find the pfSense's web interface very useful. It is very easy to use. pfSense is very reliable and stable. We like the OpenVPN clients that can be deployed using pfSense very much."
"At our peak time, we have reached more than 5,000 concurrent connections."
"The firewall sensor is highly effective, and it's easy to deploy. You can deploy pfSense with limited hardware resources. It's not necessary to have an appliance with much RAM to make it work. It's cost-effective and performs well."
"Great extensibility of the platform."
"I like pfSense's reports and how I can control access to the policies on the firewall."
"We like the fact that the product is open-source. It's free to use. There are no costs associated with it."
"I also like its logging method. Its logging is very powerful and useful for forensic purposes. You can see the traffic or a specific activity or how something entered your network and where it went."
"The sandbox feature of FireEye Network Security is very good. The operating system itself has many features and it supports our design."
"It allows us to be more hands off in checking on emails and networking traffic. We can set up a bunch of different alerts and have it alert us."
"The features that I find most valuable are the MIR (Mandiant Incident Response) for checks on our inbound security."
"The solution can scale."
"The scalability has not been a problem. We have deployed the product in very high bandwidth networks. We have never had a problem with the FireEye product causing latency issues within our networks."
"If we are receiving spam emails, or other types of malicious email coming from a particular email ID, then we are able to block them using this solution."
"Its ability to find zero-day threats, malware and anything malicious has greatly improved my customer's organization, especially for protecting the users' browser."
"The updates Fortinet provides are sometimes unstable."
"There is one big configuration file with no separations for the unique VDOMs. Maybe they could separate individual VDOM configuration files with the root VDOM configuration file referencing the individual VDOM config files."
"FortiGate is really good. We have been using it for quite some time. Initially, when we started off, we had around 70 plus devices of FortiGate, but then Check Point and Palo Alto took over the place. From the product perspective, there are no issues, but from the account perspective, we have had issues. Fortinet's presence in our company is very less. I don't see any Fortinet account managers talking to us, and that presence has diluted in the last two and a half or three years. We have close to 1,500 firewalls. Out of these, 60% of firewalls are from Palo Alto, and a few firewalls are from Check Point. FortiGate firewalls are very less now. It is not because of the product; it is because of the relationship. I don't think they had a good relationship with us, and there was some kind of disconnect for a very long time. The relationship between their accounts team and my leadership team seems to be the reason for phasing out FortiGate."
"Its price could be better."
"FortiOS is not simple."
"It would be good if they had fewer updates."
"The visibility of the network can be better. The GUI can be improved for better visibility of the network flow. Other solutions have better GUI in terms of network visibility."
"It is stable, but its stability can be improved."
"It needs to be more secure."
"The configuration of the solution is a bit difficult."
"For the third-party packages, I'd rather have it built-in, like a core feature of pfSense, part of the core model."
"The VPN feature of the solution could improve by adding better functionality and providing easier configure ability."
"Perhaps the documentation is not clear and because it is supported in the community there is no basic documentation."
"I would like to see SD1 integration into the software. That would be fantastic."
"The interface is not very shiny and attractive."
"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."
"We'd like the potential for better scaling."
"It doesn't connect with the cloud, advanced machine learning is not there. A known threat can be coming into the network and we would want the cloud to look up the problem. I would also like to see them develop more file replication and machine learning."
"It is not a very secure product."
"A better depth of view, being able to see deeper into the management process, is what I'd like to see."
"I would love to see better reporting. Because you can't export some of the reports in proper formats, it is hard to extract the data from reports."
"It would be a good idea if we could get an option to block based upon the content of an email, or the content of a file attachment."
"Technical support could be improved."
"Cybersecurity posture has room for improvement."
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.
