We performed a comparison between Netgate pfSense and Sangfor NGAF 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 payment function for applications is good."
"The VPN is the most valuable feature."
"It is user friendly, and has all the features you need."
"The FortiGate controls the user's activities and maximizes my bandwidth use overall."
"The ease of setting the solution up is a valuable aspect for us."
"This version is stable. I don't have any issues with this solution, in our environment, it works well."
"Mainly the FortiGate reporting system is very good. It guides us through all the expectations of security. Fortinet provides us all that we need for security. Also, Fortinet FortiGate is a next-generation firewall. It is much more advanced than others."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of use."
"Content protection, content inspection, and the application level firewall."
"Technical support is perfect, excellent."
"At our peak time, we have reached more than 5,000 concurrent connections."
"Good basic firewall features."
"The documentation is very good."
"Creation of certificates and the facility to administer services are valuable features."
"I like pfSense's security features."
"Sophos Intercept X is scalable. Currently, we have almost 30 people using it in our company."
"So far, the performance and reliability of the product have supported our company's critical network traffic."
"It's a very simple to use product."
"Sangfor NGAF works accordingly with our customers. The solution has good performance, easy to use, and integrates well with the endpoints."
"We can utilize our own network rather than paying for a private one."
"The stability of Sangfor NGAF is good."
"In four steps one can configure the entire firewall."
"Particularly good in the DPI where we can inspect inbound and outbound traffic."
"In our hospital, Sangfor NGAF works well for us in terms of ensuring confidentiality and availability, which are crucial in the healthcare industry."
"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."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by adding enhancements to FortiMail, FortiSOAR, and FortiDeceptor."
"Some configuration elements cannot be easily altered once created."
"Fortinet needs more memory to save the log files. We need it to save the logs on the hardware and not in the cloud. I know this feature is available in FortiCloud, but if we need this log locally, it is not available."
"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."
"The non-error conserve mode has room for improvement."
"There aren't really any negative aspects to discuss."
"I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE."
"Lacks instructional videos."
"In terms of areas of improvement, the interface seemed like it had a lot. The GUI interface that I had gotten into was rather elaborate. I don't know if they could zero in on some markets and potentially for small, medium businesses specifically, give them a stripped-down version of the GUI for pfSense."
"Needs services on additional features, such as managing inventory and generating reports."
"The user interface can be improved to make it easier to add more features. And pfSense could be better integrated with other solutions, like antivirus."
"They can improve the dynamic of the input of IPs from outside."
"This solution is good for small businesses but it is not as stable as other competitors such as Fortinet."
"The configuration of the solution is a bit difficult."
"A malware blocker should be included. I do not know if it is included yet. However, until now, we have not experienced a large malware invasion."
"The GUI needs to be improved, lacks logic in some areas."
"The web interface needs to be improved, making it more user-friendly."
"Sangfor NGAF could improve by refining its application control policies, especially in addressing challenges with certain types of applications."
"They need to improve their research team and they need to study their data to analyze it and build the product."
"The setup phase is quite complex."
"Sangfor NGAF could improve the policies and default criteria. They could be much better."
"Occasional issues with breaches which are dealt with expediently."
"I would be happy if Sangfor developed a firewall designed specifically for home use, as well as for small businesses such as clinics and so on. A household version of the Sangfor firewall for your personal computer or laptop would be ideal, in my opinion."
Netgate pfSense is ranked 1st in Firewalls with 128 reviews while Sangfor NGAF is ranked 21st in Firewalls with 29 reviews. Netgate pfSense is rated 8.6, while Sangfor NGAF is rated 7.8. 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 Sangfor NGAF writes "Affordable, easy to configure firewall with fast, responsive support". Netgate pfSense is most compared with OPNsense, Sophos XG, Sophos UTM, KerioControl and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas Sangfor NGAF is most compared with Sophos XG, Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls, Fortinet FortiOS, Check Point NGFW and SonicWall NSa. See our Netgate pfSense vs. Sangfor NGAF 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.
