The ease of use. Like, it's easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise. For me, it's quite easy and friendly to use.

We have a set of rules so that it can manage all of our rules. We have a complex network here in our school. We have a lot of rules running, so it's really easy to match all of those rules using pfSense.

Integrating pfSense with other products was a bit tedious at first. We researched and tested for about a month, so it was not too hard but not instant.

I have found the firewall portion for the blocking most valuable.

Open source and support are valuable. I have community support.

Its performance is good. It is reliable. I would rate it a solid nine out of ten for performance.

The most valuable feature, for instance, is the ease of migrating configurations between different Netgate devices housed in the same box. This capability simplifies troubleshooting, as it allows for faster identification of DNS discrepancies or any other issues compared to proprietary systems. With pfSense, network configurations adhere to standard practices, facilitating troubleshooting without the need for complex overlays or policies. The interface, prioritizes network principles, making it intuitive for those familiar with networking concepts to navigate and achieve desired outcomes efficiently.

• Reliable
• Easily configurable
• Awesome plug-ins
• Very low maintenance

I use the free version of Netgate pfSense software. I installed it on my servers with mini network cards, allowing me to create mini gateways and implement different plans.

It's worth noting that Netgate pfSense's performance is independent of the hardware it runs on. As I mentioned earlier, its scalability is a strong point. Most functions are readily available, and additional features can be obtained by downloading and installing plugins, which are generally free. When you compare this to the alternative of purchasing a firewall from a different supplier, you'll find that the latter option typically doubles the cost of the firewall itself. This cost increase is often attributed to additional licenses for deep inspection and similar functionalities. While configuring pfSense may require more time and effort upfront, the long-term cost savings make it a more cost-effective choice.   

I handle the scanning for the finance department. I recently encountered an issue with our company bills. I resolved the matter, cleared the bill, and received calls regarding it using pfSense. 

The user interface is extremely user-friendly, which is why we use it across various sites. Our IT representatives at the plants find it easy to use and manage because of its straightforward interface.

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.

The GUI is easy to understand. 

The firewall aspect of the solution is very valuable to us. We had so many limitations with the Dre tech, however, it's the firewall and the port forwarding that is the most interesting due to the fact it allows us to restrict IP addresses and move things from different ports and things like that.

I'm the expert when it comes to Linux systems, however, with the pfSense, due to the web interface, the rest of the staff can actually make changes to it as required without me worrying about whether they've opened up ports incorrectly or not. The ease of use for non-expert staff is very good. 

The solution is easy to use in general, for everyone.

The product is very powerful.

It's the type of device that does one thing well. There isn't much I would want to change.

pfSense is a nice product, and I find that there's a lot of information out there. There are some good tutorials on YouTube and other websites with helpful information.

I'm still experimenting with some new features. I want to do a high availability configuration. I haven't done that yet, but I'm using OpenVPN, it's very handy. 

We only use it for the backup internet connection. It is effective. We have not had any problems.

We can run it on any hardware.

Its firewall ability is very good. It is very good and smooth at stopping attacks. It is better than others because we have to perform quite a bit of programming.

It is a very good and affordable solution for enterprises.

The VPN features are the most valuable. The product’s documentation is good.

The solution is very easy to use and configure.

The solution is very flexible.

I find the product very easy to use. 

The initial setup is not complex. 

The solution has been very stable so far.

We can scale the solution if we need to.

It has a very nice web interface, and it is very simple to use. The way policies are working is also good.

It is very easy to use. The interface is quite understandable. There is a good community, and I can take over at any time I want. If there is anything wrong with it, I could just reinstall the whole thing and start all over again, and I'll be up again in less than a few minutes.

The solution is quite stable. The performance is very good.

We've found the solution to be very easy to use. It's user-friendly.

The scalability potential of the product is quite good. 

We like the fact that the product is open-source. It's free to use. There are no costs associated with it.

The solution is very easy to install.

The solution is quite fast.

It does a good job of monitoring our systems.

The plugins or add-ons are most valuable. Sometimes, they are free of charge, and sometimes, you have to pay for them, but you can purchase or download very valuable plugins or add-ons to perform internal testing of your network and simulate a denial-of-service attack or whichever attack you want to simulate. You can also remote and monitor your network and see where the gap is. Did you forget a printer port? Most attacks at the moment are happening through printers, and they can tell you immediately that you forgot to close the port of the printer. There are more than one million printers that are in danger, and everybody knows that hackers are using them to enter the network. So, you can download plugins to protect your network.

It is not only a firewall; it can also do some routing or network advanced translation (NAT), which makes it very powerful.

It is very simple to use. As long as you understand the basics or fundamentals of networking, you can manage everything very quickly with it.

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.

The documentation is very good.

The pricing is okay. It's not too expensive.

The integration capabilities are great. The product can integrate well with Check Point and Fortinet. They make it a very easy process.

It's very good at defending our company.

The solution is very robust.

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.

I use pfSense because it gives me the flexibility to greatly expand basic firewall features. It's open source (and free - as in beer and speech), but also has commercial support. This can be run on any commodity hardware on the market (I've ran it on AMD and Intel - even Atom, processors) and throughput is excellent, even with lower speed CPUs and less RAM.

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.

The intrusion detection feature is the most valuable. It is an open-source firewall, so there is a lot of material on it. I also find the open VPN capability very nice.

It is pretty customizable. The clustering and the high availability are the two biggest things to be able to get out of a firewall. 

The built-in open VPN and the VPN Client Export are the solution's most valuable aspects.

There are so many packages you can install which extends pfSense's capabilities including consuming from lists such as FireHOL, Pi-Hole, etc. Here are a few packages we use:

• IPSec: pfSense allows for both v1 and v2 IPSec configurations to secure your connections.
• IPS: You can use Snort or Suricata along with Snort packages, even subscribe to commercial packages if you wish. This alone starts making pfSense on par with Cisco.
• Proxy/content filtering: You can install Squid and SquidGuard to act as a proxy and content filter. Yes, it does filter HTTPS, and there's a number of ways you can do it out of the box.

pfSense also reformatted their logs so that they're compliant and standardized. We have our logs shipped to our SIEM and Logstash servers.

• The VPN and the firewall. They are reliable and easy to manage.
• The VPN is valuable for setting up secure remote connections to our network.
• pfSense has the OpenVPN package which is a well-supported VPN software.
• The "OpenVPN Client Export" package is really helpful in exporting the VPN client software on most popular devices: iOS/Android, Windows, Mac, Linux, and a handful of SIP handsets.

What I found most valuable is the cost of the platform, the flexibility of the platform, and the fact that the ongoing fees are not there as they are with the competitor. Some people may think you're taking a risk with using open source. I think it just provides the end-user, specifically for us small, medium business providers of services, the flexibility we need at the right cost to provide them a higher-end, almost enterprise-type service. 

• Open source
• Proximity security
• Content filtering

The solution is 100% free to use.

The product offers a lot of helpful plugins.

The solution is easy to use and has a elaborate GUI.

The initial setup is quite simple and straightforward.

I like the connectivity to the open VPN. It's very smooth. All the encryption in the open VPN is very good. The structure of the pfSense software works out very well. The PF work cuts and the snorts and whatever we put on the console for spyware and attack prevention seem to work very nicely. 

The developers of pfSense follow the principles of open-source.

They keep it simple. It's simple and good.

The most valuable features of pfSense are the reports, monitoring, filtration, and blocking incoming and outgoing traffic.

It's quite an awesome product with so many good things packed into it. I am happy with the EPLS, the radius, and I am happy with the captive portal. All in all, it's a good product. And considering that I get it for paying nothing, it's really worth the time invested in it.

The most valuable features are the VPN and the captive portal. Captive portal and VPN are easy to deploy.

1. I can manage it easily by myself.
2. The interaction between the same firewalls is good. We can connect VPNs over the same firewall easily.
3. It is an open source solution. Therefore, the price is good.
4. OPNsense.
5. The performance and functionality are good.

• Battery backup
• True processor power at low energy cost
• Expansion possibilities
• Low noise emission

The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, and VPN Are most common. This is a feature-rich product and the documentation is good.

The most valuable features of pfSense are security, user-friendliness, and helpful online management.

The pricing is good.

I have a good understanding of the underlying firewall which I find to be easy to use and comprehend. Some of the terminologies were more familiar to me than they were when I first encountered Cisco.

The initial setup is pretty easy.

The solution has been stable. 

From what I can tell, the solution can scale. 

What I like about pfSense is that it works well and runs on an inexpensive appliance. It's a minimal Intel system that has no fan and is all solid-state. It doesn't have a fan because it doesn't do enough to get hot. It's a box about the size of a Discman. I can download the pfSense software at no cost then connect a keyboard, mouse, monitor, and USB flash drive to the appliance. It's built on top of BSD and managed with a web server. And it's effortless to manage.

pfSense is a free firewall that you can download and install on your own hardware and establish a VPN for it. If you have remote users who need to connect securely, pfSense can do that. The solution has multiple use cases. It's good for scanning and filtering traffic. It's a good network security appliance which you can install on your own hardware or on their hardware. Some companies will invest in a really big firewall for their main branch, and will install pfSense in remote sites because they don't see the value of buying an expensive firewall for each branch.

The features I have found best are ease of use, GUI, and performance.

The flexibility of adding new kinds of services without spending any money can't be beaten. We can compare services like IP blocking, blacklisting and DNS blocking, content filtering, and even deep packet inspection with other larger enterprise firewalls.

I have found the most valuable features to be antivirus and malware protection.

Content protection, content inspection, and the application level firewall are all good features. 

The most valuable feature for our company has been the extensibility of the platform which is great. It's a great solution and I have regularly been supplying it to my clients. 

I like pfSense's reports and how I can control access to the policies on the firewall.

One of the most valuable features of this solution is that it's almost entirely free and I can do everything with it.

The tools' most valuable feature is load balancing. 

I especially like the VPN part. It works like a charm.

I have not had one issue with pfSense at all, which is amazing.

The solution offers good value.

The captive portal on the product is excellent.

The solution has a very nice load balancer.

It's a good solution for end-users. It's pretty easy to work with. 

The user interface is very nice. It's easy to navigate around the solution.

Technical support is very helpful.

• Super easy to manage. Anyone who has been working with firewalls can handle it.
• There is good documentation with a fantastic community and enterprise support.
• The strongSwan IPSec is a great implementation.
• Proxy features are excellent (except MITM).

The main features of this solution are customization and ease to use.

It works. I put pfSense in, and it works. I can't think of any trouble I ever had with it. It runs on heat-sensitive appliances. They don't need a fan, so they don't overheat. 

It is affordable, fast, and very high-speed. It is built on BSD Unix, and it pretty much runs on any Intel processor. 

First of all scalability of this solution. It's an all-in-one solution useful for every kind of company. It's also very easy to set up rules and NAT, and it has several modules like transparent proxy, VPN, and traffic shaping which are the daily modules for me.

The easy to use GUI. Less training is required for the newcomers in IT.

Most valuable is a 50/50 between no licensing (cough Cisco) and being able to actually repair a firewall instead of replace since pfSense can be loaded to any x86/x64 PC or Server.

We use the open source version and we chose the hardware platform.

For pfSense the valuable features are:

• High availability
• VPN (openVPN)
• Easy administration
• Extensibility (by modules)
• Easy backup/restore, independent platform not linked to a commercial vendor

Among the most valuable features I have found in PFsense are: Easy to deploy and easy to use, traffic graphics are excellent and tools that can be included as squid, snort, squidguard, ntop, pfblogNG, support wonderfully the purpose of generating PFsense.

• Port routing policies
• Load balancing
• Clustering

The most valuable feature of this solution is its simplicity.

I like pfSense's security features. 

The solution has good customization abilities and plenty of features.

The VPN is my favorite feature. pfSense is very easy to use. The interface and configuration capabilities are great.

The solution is an excellent open-source product. It has a big community around it as well. Out of those few points, you'll come up to a situation whereby you can avoid the vendor lock-in. Since there is a big community, you can count on reliability. There are lots of installations and lots of people who understand how everything works. 

The solution offers excellent flexibility. You can either install pfSense just on a machine, on your local PC, or you can buy an appliance. You can even buy your own hardware and install it on your own. Of course, if you choose that route, you need to have a technical expert on your team. For us, as a software company, that's not a problem.

There are plugins you can add to the product if you want even more useability. You can even add more security functionality.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The most valuable feature is the proactive network protection.

We also find the following components valuable:

1. pFBlocker
2. Squid
3. SquidGuard
4. Firewall

The most valuable features for me and my current company are the open VPN capabilities and the firewall service.

I like the solution's stability and ease of use. 

pfSense is very easy to use.

It is a better firewall than others and it has better features.

It has a good web cache. I used to use a DHCP server and DNS server. For my company, I use pfSense as a load balancing application.

The HA proxy is the main feature that it's used for. 

Routing, load balancing, Traffic Limiter and queues. Since this company relies on an Internet connection, having these features is a must.

Flexibility is the most valuable feature for us.

The GUI is an all in one solution that includes features such as DHCP, VPN, Squid, Firewall, etc.

• Fail-over of between multiple ISPs
• Firewall
• Graphs
• Real time interface monitoring
• The web UI gives you an overview of everything you want to see
• For an open-source solution it has performed fantastically
• OSPF
• It contains loads of optional packages e.g Snort (IDS), asterix (PBX), network monitors etc.

- Firewall/router

- OpenVPN server

- DHCP server

- High availability cluster

- It's for FREE!

• Load balancing multi-WAN (High latency)
• Queues with CBQ algorithm
• Traffic shaper (limiter)
• Aliases for grouping anything 
• VPN (OpenVPN)
• DHCP server (with ARP reservation)
• DNS forwarder
• Firewall 
• Graphs for monitoring
• NAT

The performance is good.

It is easy to use.

I have been working with this solution for so long now that it has become easy. It is much simpler than other solutions such as Fortinet.

A key feature is being able to block IP addresses. This is a good product and I have no issues with it.

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

I like the Package Manager feature. 

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

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.

The Captive Portal (pass through MAC) feature.

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

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 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 solution is an open-source product, which makes it very cost-effective.

Overall, it covers all of the requirements our organization has at this time. 

The initial setup is easy.

• The part of the firewall and aliases
• The content filter in non-transparent mode and transparent mode with Squid and SquidGuard
• The possibility of adding packages to perform network analysis
• Creation of certificates
• The facility to administer services

Two particular features stand out to me:

1. The WAN load balancing feature
2. The product offers many additional functions such as router, WLC, and traffic analysis etc.

The solution is fairly scalable when it comes to integrating with other applications and data sets. They have a lot more customization compared to the competition.

It is very difficult to decide one, as they all complement each other, from the DHCP administration to the captive portal. in my case, I would say OpenVPN has helped me to interconnect the company network in a secure and manageable way.

Stateful packet inspection. It works quite well for an open source product. 

Centralized administration with multiple services, which allows for execution in several important functionalities of information security.

Security and stability. The pfSense server acts as "IPSec VPN Server" for a small financial institution, but regardless of the company size, interruptions would cause significant financial impact.

Security

• Stability
• Integration with other systems
• Easy assimilation of its features
• Easy administration
• Multiple network management tools
• Load balancing
• Multiple links
• High availability, etc.

Outbound Load Balance for internet links work great. It's very good to keep internet access for the company we support.

The ability to create a VPN allows me to monitor branch offices from a central location.

• Snort
• CARP
• Load balancing
• VPN

It's easy to access and configure in general.  As for features, the firewall and security  options were valuable.  These are valuable because I like simple things that are easy to work with, as too much difficulty or too much constraint is not good, and boring.

• Free
• Open source
• Robust
• Strong community support
• Strong author support

I like the fact that it is open-source.

The Surakarta and the web blocking functionality seems to be quite good. It's not perfect, but none of them are.

The interface is straightforward and easy to use.

While it is difficult for me to point to any one specific advantage of the solution in respect of the firewall, I do know that it has many benefits. For one, it is open source. 

This product supports multiple ISP's, so it's good for implementation.

• Captive Portal 
• DHCP

• MAC Filtered DHCP and DNS
• Captive Portal
• VPN
• Proxy Server
• Proxy Filter

• Firewall
• State Table
• Network Address Translation (NAT)
• High Availability
• Multi-WAN
• Server Load Balancing
• Virtual Private Network (VPN)
• PPPoE Server
• Reporting and Monitoring Applications
• Dynamic DNS
• Captive Portal
• DHCP Server and Relay

• Firewall
• DHCP
• VPN

The ability to perform packet captures on the command line and via the GUI is useful for diagnosing problems.

The most valuable features are the Proxy IPS and VPN.

• Load balancer
• Multi-WAN

• Firewall rules 
• Modules, e.g. Squid

pfSense is very good because it allows us to do what we want.

The most valuable features are ease of installation and support.

Ease of monitoring and placement of other packages and functionalities next to the equipment.

The features I've found most valuable are--

• Proxy server (to filter traffic, act as intermediary between our server and our client, and analyze and load-balance traffic)
• Load balancer (support multiple servers, load balances two gateways on the same tier)
• Hot spot (with captive portal, forces authentication or click-through for network access)