Compare Palo Alto Networks WildFire vs. pfSense
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
"The cloud-based services are a nice feature." "My primary use case for this solution is for a secure gateway." "The reporting feature helps our performance." "Being an application-based firewall, this is one of the critical focus factors along with the threat prevention services it provides." "It is stable and pretty much scalable." "It helps us when segmenting and securing the network and all sort of technologies, all sort of next generation needs. It's next generation phases of firewall like anti-virus, sandboxing, wifi, and VPN." "They have many different options with Palo Alto WildFire and the set-up is quick. If you have all the details in hand, it does not take more than 15 minutes to deploy a firewall." "The most valuable feature is the Automatic Verdict, to recognize whether something is a threat, or not." | "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." "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." "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." "This solution has helped our organization by protecting our network from attacks." "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." "The scalability is very good, where you can do an HA configuration and then bring in another box, if necessary." "The most valuable features are the VPN and the capture photo." "The solution is very robust." |
Cons | |
"I think it would be nice for Palo Alto to work without the connection to the cloud. It is 100% powerful when connected to the cloud. But, if you disconnect from the cloud, you only get 40-50% power." "I would give this product a rating of 9 out of 10 due to some slight issues of performance." "As a firewall and 360 degrees of security, there needs to be more maturity." "The initial setup was complex." "Other vendors have some sort of bandwidth management built into the firewall itself and Palo Alto is missing that." "There are certain changes that I was expecting in the previous version, and I hope that they are soon fixed. All of the problems that I have faced so far have been resolved." "I would like to see them continue on their developmental roadmap for the product." "The size of Palo Alto's cloud is big but it could be easier to use from a product management perspective." | "I would like to see SD1 integration into the software. That would be fantastic." "pfSense is not user-friendly. I hope to have something to make the interfaces more user-friendly." "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." "This product needs improvements with respect to reporting and auditing." "We would like to see ready-made profiles to cover most users' needs." "I would like to see different graphs available in the reporting." "If a user doesn't have a large amount of experience in Linux systems, they will have problems using this solution. Users need to be highly skilled in troubleshooting competency. Users who do not have such skills will find the product difficult to use." "The solution requires a lot of administration." |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
"The pricing is OK, it is not too expensive." "It is a reasonable price compared to other solutions on the market." "It's pretty expensive but with respect to value for money, it's okay." "The licensing fees are on an annual basis, and there are no costs in addition to the standard fees." "We pay between $3,000 and $4,000 CAD ($2,200 - $3,000 USD) per year to maintain this solution." "This solution is very pricey and it depends on the package that you implement." "I think they should lower the price of this solution" "The pricing is highly expensive." | "This solution provides enterprise-level features at a fraction of the cost of an enterprise firewall." "It is an open source firewall." |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection solutions are best for your needs. 441,726 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Questions from the Community | |
Top Answer: Palo Alto was the first company to tackle perimeter protection via applications instead of port blocking their install base is massive including the Fortune 50 Cisco is a household name but when it… more » Top Answer: The way that the solution quickly updates to adjust to threats is the solution's most valuable aspect. When there's a security attack, within five minutes, all Wildfire subscribers have access to… more » Top Answer: The pricing of the solution is a bit higher, but it's worth the extra money you will spend because of the protection that you get. | Top Answer: I'd agree with Karl's comment above. PfSense is a great product but treat it like a firewall and the big bonus is it's free. It's great at what it does.
Sophos UTM on the other hand can be a beast as… more » Top Answer: Basically the major difference between Sophos XG Firewall and PFsense is that Sophos is a nextgen firewall based on objects and services and works on layer 7.
Instead, Pfsense is a layer 3 firewall… more » |
Ranking  | |
Views 39,193 Comparisons 34,340 Reviews 12 Average Words per Review 495 Avg. Rating 8.7 | Views 97,082 Comparisons 78,799 Reviews 14 Average Words per Review 475 Avg. Rating 8.6 |
Popular Comparisons | |
 Compared 19% of the time.  Compared 12% of the time.  Compared 8% of the time. Compared 7% of the time.  Compared 5% of the time. |  Compared 21% of the time.  Compared 17% of the time. Compared 15% of the time.  Compared 10% of the time.  Compared 2% of the time. |
Learn | |
| Palo Alto Networks | pfSense Video Not Available |
Overview | |
| WildFire™ cloud-based threat analysis service is the industry’s most advanced analysis and prevention engine for highly evasive zero-day exploits and malware. The cloud-based service employs a unique multi-technique approach combining dynamic and static analysis, innovative machine learning techniques, and a groundbreaking bare metal analysis environment to detect and prevent even the most evasive threats. | 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 Palo Alto Networks WildFire | Learn more about pfSense |
Sample Customers | |
| Novamedia, Nexon Asia Pacific, Lenovo, Samsonite, IOOF, Sinogrid, SanDisk Corporation | Nerds 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 | |
Comms Service Provider21% Retailer14% Government14% Financial Services Firm7% Computer Software Company30% Comms Service Provider19% Government7% Media Company5% | University18% Comms Service Provider14% Healthcare Company9% Non Tech Company9% Comms Service Provider27% Computer Software Company20% Media Company8% Government6% |
Company Size | |
Small Business48% Midsize Enterprise10% Large Enterprise41% Small Business13% Midsize Enterprise17% Large Enterprise69% | Small Business68% Midsize Enterprise18% Large Enterprise14% |
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Check Point, FireEye and others in Advanced Threat Protection. Updated: September 2020.
441,726 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Palo Alto Networks WildFire is ranked 1st in Advanced Threat Protection with 14 reviews while pfSense is ranked 3rd in Firewalls with 13 reviews. Palo Alto Networks WildFire is rated 8.6, while pfSense is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks WildFire writes "Good technical support and provides automatic analysis that saves us time in filtering email". 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". Palo Alto Networks WildFire is most compared with Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Firepower NGFW Firewall, Zscaler Internet Access, Cisco ASA Firewall and Proofpoint Email Protection, whereas pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos UTM, Fortinet FortiGate, Untangle NG Firewall and WatchGuard Firebox.
See our list of .
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection 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.