Netgate pfSense Reviews

We use pfSense as a firewall and proxy server. We use it to apply different restrictions for different users from some data locations.

I mostly like all of it. Whatever we use is valuable.

There are some bias issues and some intrusions in our network that have to be addressed. So, we're thinking of changing this firewall to something like a professional hardware-enabled firewall.

I have been working with pfSense for many years now.

pfSense is a stable solution.

pfSense is a scalable solution. We have about 200 users in our company.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give pfSense a seven.

We use pfSense for the firewall, VPN server, client-server, and internal network.

pfSense helped us during COVID-19 because we used OpenVPN to connect from home.

I like the Package Manager feature. 

The main problem with pfSense is that it lacks adequate ransomware protection. I would also like pfSense to be more robust like Cisco or Fortinet.

I've been using pfSense for two or three years.

The stability is very good.

Scalability is very good. We didn't have to slow down, and we worked with it for months.

The pfSense page, community support, and YouTube tutorials are good.

The initial set up is complex and took two days to deploy.

pfSense is open-source.

I like Fortinet and Sophos as they have more tools to prevent ransomware attacks. Sophos has a client-server, and pfSense doesn't have that. Fortinet and Sophos are under a paid license, and pfSense is open-source and free. This is the main difference.

I would recommend pfSense to potential users. I would tell them to just read the tutorials because they're very useful. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give pfSense a nine.

We have a hosted platform with our client. We've built a VPN site and the solution is deployed as a VM. The client connects to it and it protects anything that's behind it like a regular firewall. Everything we have there is hosted in a data center, all our servers and things that clients connect to. So we're using it as our gateway device. We are customers of pfSense and I'm the owner of our company. 

I like the site-to-site VPN and the basic firewall features.

Right now we have to use a lot of third party plugins with other providers that have their own built-in features so I'd like to see layer 7 advanced firewall features included in the solution. It would definitely improve the product. 

We've used pfSense over the past three years. 

The stability is very good, it's just that it's not as easy to use as SonicWall. There are limits as to who we can put to work on the solution, a limited number of our engineers work with it.

The solution is very scalable. We don't sell pfSense to the end users, we use it ourselves. Our clients have SonicWall but the whole company benefits from the firewall. 

We've never used technical support but we're looking into it now and I think it's very comparable to SonicWall.

It's harder to set up pfSense than SonicWall. Only a couple of people in our company can do that. 

We are currently using the open source solution so it's free. 

There's a learning curve to this solution, it's not as simple to use as some of the other GUI based firewalls. You need to play around with it a bit. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

pfSense is very valuable as previously I had to use Microsoft's TMG solution. After some research, when I got stuck configuring a physical machine with many VMs, I noticed that pfSense, as a firewall, uses less resources. I started to test it on a simple PC, and I have now seen how I can benefit from open source software. So therefore, the most valuable feature is that it uses less resources than a physical machine.

It is free of charge. I am living in country where this is not so important yet, as no one controls the licenses of software. However, our company tries to look forward and prevent issues that may happen in the future. So it being free, and easy to configure, are the benefits for us.

I think that areas for improvement are not closely related with the work of pfSense but with its components, meaning the packages. I am faced with little problems when I install none-recommended (beta) versions. But, I also understand that these versions are mostly for developers, who are trying to contribute their best efforts for open source.

I have been using pfSense as a firewall solution for approximately eight months.

When I started to test it in a real environment, it was on a physical machine and I was faced with problems. It was that the freeBSD wouldn't detect my USB keyboard, but after waiting a while, it eventually worked. In a virtual environment, I had no problems.

Just once. One of our customers had an issue with their electrical stability. The electrical supply was jumping, and playing about, and when it was happening pfSense stopped.

It depends actually, and to be honest, I have never used all the available features of this product, but I believe that there should not be any issues with the scalability.

I have never used the customer service for pfSense. I have read the manuals, but have never contacted customer service.

I have never used it.

I previously used Microsoft's TMG solution. I switched because after some research when I got stuck configuring a physical machine with many VMs, I decided to use pfSense.

The Captive Portal (pass through MAC) feature.

We have been able to gain control of our bandwidth and improve our web security.

VPN ability needs to be improved.

I've used it for one year.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

9/10.

8/10.

Before pfSense I was using a different solution, but I like this product due to the low cost of hardware, its stability, web interface, and the fact its open source etc.

it's a straightforward setup.

I implemented this, in our office, myself.

There was no cost.

We didn't look at any other options.

I would recommend that you use and implement this product. I say that because it is open source, has a low hardware cost, its fabulous web interface, the backup and restore feature, the pass through MAC, and many other features etc.

It is a stable solution. It is also easy to install and can be deployed and maintained by one team member.

pfSense has some limitations in detecting site sessions. We want to control internet usage based on sites and their content, and pfSense doesn't perform this function.

The site itself could be improved; it's not easy to find the things that you want to implement and apply.

It would be good if it had more features like Sophos does.

I've been using pfSense for two years.

It is a stable product.

The installation was easy. I was able to install it in two hours maximum. Only one person is needed for deployment and maintenance.

Currently, we don't pay for a license.

We have fifty users in our organization, and I can recommend pfSense. On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at eight.

We use pfSense to protect our customers using IPS and IDS.

We are a government agency and we manage the government network. 

We complete the setup and we are protecting our customers.

The most valuable feature is that it's robust.

In terms of resources, utilization assets, CPU utilization, and a lot of memory, it's very good. 

The concurrent users are perfect for us.

The router monitoring needs improvement when compared with Sonicwall.

I would like an API that can sync to SolarWinds because we use SolarWinds for our monitoring platform. It would be great to be able to do all of the monitoring from SolarWinds instead of logging into the application to monitor it. It would be a nice feature to have.

I have been using pfSense for less than two years.

In the last two weeks, we moved a few resources to the pfSense and it's been stable. 

When compared to SonicWall there were some issues but it could be that SonicWall was doing too much. It was doing almost everything. It was doing IDS, IPS, and contextual training. It may be that it was overwhelmed.

We were using the software base, and then we bought the hardware device. We moved 12 users onto it and we are monitoring it.

Based on the documentation it would not require much to scale up or upgrade. There is no doubt that it is scalable.

Most of the support is online.

We do a lot of reading, and if there is any support or suggestions we quickly do it. 

We have not contacted them directly.  

They have a lot of resources available on the internet that will guide you in finding your way around.

We use a few different firewalls. We use SonicWall and Huawei firewall along with pfSense.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy.

We did not use an integrator. I completed it with one of my colleagues.

Looking at what it does, I think that it is fairly priced.

When we compare to SonicWall, we feel that we are getting the best with pfSense.

Depending on what they want their firewall to do for them. If it is for intrusion detection, and intrusion prevention I would recommend this solution. 

In summary, this product is good but I would like to see resources utilization (cpu, hard disk) directly on SolarWinds. A one stop shop for monitoring on SolarWinds. It would be great!

I would rate pfSense a six out of ten.

We primarily use pfSense as a firewall. It's a DHCP server.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the way it can browse packages on the internet.

The initial setup is very easy.

We've found the stability to be very good overall.

The product can scale if you need it to.

The access control aspect of the product could be improved. There should be more control over everything that the user is doing. It should be able to log and report on everything users are doing. 

The product no longer complies with new rules in Brazil. Therefore, we need to move off the solution.

I have about five years of experience with the solution. It's been a while since we started using it at our organization.

The stability of the product is very good. We haven't had any issues. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

We've found the solution to have good scalability. If a company needs to expand, it can do so. That shouldn't be a problem.

We have about 10,000 people using the solution. There is a network manager and about ten people that work directly with the solution.

We won't be increasing usage, however. The Brazilian government recently changed some laws and this product is no longer in compliance. That is one of the reasons we are looking at Palo Alto. We are likely moving away from this solution.

While the websites and forums are excellent, we don't have any dealings directly with technical support. Therefore, we can't speak to how they are in terms of their responsiveness or knowledgability. 

A long time ago, the company did use a different solution. They switched to pfSense. However, now they are moving away from it as well. 

We're also using Palo Alto, however, right now, it's just in the demo phase. The solution seems to be better at centralization, which is a big selling point. We have three school campuses and we'd like to configure a solution from one central location that would work for all three campuses. With Palo Alto, it looks like we can achieve this.

On top of that, with Palo Alto, there are more user control products. You can log everything that you are doing on the internet with it.

The initial setup of the solution is very easy. It's straightforward. There isn't any complexity. A company shouldn't have any troubles with the setup.

We are using a free version of the solution. We don't need to pay any licensing fees.

We are just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

I would recommend the solution to small companies. If you are a small company, you can use pfSense without any issues due to the fact that it's a free solution.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.