If I needed to scale it and merge our pfSense machines into one, I'd prefer a dedicated hardware appliance instead of running multiple x86 servers on the firewall.

We have around 4,000 endpoints. 

I have found the solution to be unlimited when it comes to scalability. The more memory and power you give it, it will use it all.

I believe it is scalable. If I need more computers with more NICs, it is scalable, but it is not something related to pfSense. 

The scalability of pfSense is impressive. I've witnessed its capabilities firsthand, especially when it was deployed in environments supporting up to seven thousand employees. I would rate it nine out of ten. Currently, pfSense is our top recommendation for clients, tailored to their budget and specific requirements. Depending on the client's needs, such as compliance with PCI or HIPAA regulations, we may suggest models that offer corresponding features and evaluations of network security. This flexibility allows us to cater to clients with varying compliance needs, ensuring they receive suitable recommendations.

I've had no issues. I am using this on multiple sites, with reliable VPN tunnels and the traffic seems to remain a constant.

We have 250 employees using this solution.

The scalability of pfSense is excellent, and it's easy to expand. Currently, we have around 200-plus users at our head office using pfSense. I would rate it 7 out of 10.

You can scale up pfSense with multiple clusters for higher availability. It has that capability. It gives you that flexibility to set up a hybrid with part of the deployment in the cloud and a mural copy or to grow your network. 

Scalable but only if one has expertise of open source configuration of software such as pfsense.

It's not been extensively used at the moment as we've already got a Linux server in place. If we can justify it for the customer, we tend to use that. That said, we are looking to increase usage of that as it would say it takes some of the work away from me and allows me to farm that out to the staff.

It is scalable. I would rate it a seven out of ten for scalability.

The tool is not very scalable. That is why we are planning to switch to a different product. The solution is used by one administrator and 75 end users in our organization.

It is very scalable. It is being used in an enterprise with 70 employees and about 30 terabytes of communication per month. I also have other small enterprises with 10 to 20 employees. In my office, I have four users. 

I rate the tool’s scalability a ten out of ten.

I am only using the solution for personal use and have not tried to scale it.

The scalability of the product is very good. If we want to expand, we can do so. 

We have 3,000 people on the solution right now. There are people from various teams that utilize it. It's not just IT. 

It is quite scalable.

The solution scales quite well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with relative ease.

We have a few hundred users at this time.

We do have plans to continue to use the product.

I don't require much scalability. It is fine for a small-scale company with about 30 devices, such as printers, computers, etc. I'm only working with a few people, and I don't have any traffic problems, but a company with 50 or 60 users could have problems with it. Currently, there are four to five users, and I'm providing multimedia services to four to five people. 

It is being used extensively. Sometimes, its usage is 50 times a day, and sometimes, there is no usage. I don't work on it on a daily basis. It also depends on the project I'm working on. We have plans to increase its usage.

It is easily scalable. It is more of a hardware thing than a software thing.

We have about 350 people at our organization that this solution covers.

The scalability is fine. If you need to have a bigger client or something like that, it's simple. You do a backup and then you restore into a new appliance and go from there. 

No - in our high-speed tests (10G), we were not able to push the CPU over 20% utilization.

Its scalability is good. I have got web users and other kinds of users, so there can be five or thousands of users.

I have not tried scaling, therefore, I can't really comment on how easy or hard it would be to expand the service.

There's only one person in the organization using the solution, and that's me.

Extremely high. We tested it on VMs running different configurations from extremely lightweight to overkill. It will run on anything and maintain it's high performance. Obviously the more you give it, the more amazing the solution becomes. 

I have noticed that pfSense boots up really slowly as more users are connected to it. Occasionally, you have to re-install or delete broken packages that freeze up the system. However, the core pfSense software runs great.

You could scale the pfSense platform to multiple users and bandwidth. With SonicWall, you have to go get a different version of their product because they're going to tie their firmware to their version. pfSense doesn't do that. It seemed to me like the scale of pfSense is easier and it was a non-sales interactive requirement to scale the offering versus with SonicWall.

Being open source, scalability is not limited. The limits in place, are only set by available resources and time.

I've tried to scale the solution previously. I've got two hardware platforms running. I wasn't quite able to run everything I wanted on a small ARM based device. Therefore,  I build my own Super-micro platform based on Intel Denverton.

It's actually easy to scale. It's just moving over most of the configuration: exporting, importing, or even going right into the original XML export file.

There are six users, 3 dozen of devices and a homelab server with VM running behind the solution at this time.

pfSense is scalable.

At our peak time, we have reached more than 5,000 concurrent connections.

I had 20 to 30 users using the solution.

As we are in SMB, I cant comment on big traffic situations but for a small organization like ours (10 to 20 users) and with various integrations that we need (e.g., OpenVPN, WireGuard, LDAP authentications, Tens of VLANS, Captive portal, DHCP Relay, EAP-TLS, IDS, Adblocks etc.) We are ok with it...

Scalability was less important. When we started, we did not have to scale the pfSense. In the seven years that I have used the pfSense, once I had to renew it because the hardware was broken or was defective. The second one was a little bit faster and had more memory, so I did not have to scale it again. Therefore, the scalability has not been so important to us until now.

It has worked as expected so far.

This product is scalable to some point, although we have never used it for large companies. We use it for small to medium-sized organizations. For big companies, we more often implement Palo Alto.

In our company, we have a data center and some of our clients are hooked to it. This is something that we have on-premises for our customers.

We have plans to increase our usage with pfSense because we have had good feedback from our customers. In fact, with the good experience we have had, our sales have been slightly increasing. Our sales are shifting from Sophos to pfSense.

We have approximately 2,000 people using the solution.

I rate the scalability of pfSense an eight out of ten.

While it's my understanding that scaling wouldn't be a problem, I myself have never actually tried to do so. Therefore, I can't speak from personal experience. 

I know a peer who set up pfSense in a Catholic parish school. It's not thousands of devices, but there are several devices in the parish office, the rectory, and throughout the school, as well as three different VPNs. There's a fourth VPN connection to the IT Director's house, where he manages most of it. So that's four locations with VPNs, and that's the biggest one I know. All you have to do is buy a big enough appliance. You can use the minimum appliance in the rectory, where there's a handful of computers, but you need a step up from that in the school, where there are a lot more computers to connect. And I think even the parish office, which is a handful of people, uses the minimum appliance.

The solution is scalable, it has the HA options that other firewalls also have. It's a software-defined solution, so you can pretty much put it inside a virtual machine and scale it up. Or you can load balance, or have an HA set up between two pfSense proxies, it's all possible.

Since this solution is software-based it is easy to scale. We can extend the UIs by adding some hardware, such as CPUs and memory discs. We would not be able to match this type of scalability with a hardware-based solution, for example as FortiGate.

This solution is best suited for small to midsize networks. When there is heavy traffic in larger-scale businesses it becomes less reliable.

The expandability and the high availability configuration of the system are good.

We currently have approximately 45 people using the solution.

The solution is scalable to a degree but we never use it for big companies. We use it for mid-range companies. Our company has a data center and we have companies that are hooked to our data center. We're doing this on-premise for our customers so if the customer has an on-prem information system, we will implement the firewall and UTM at their location. We have plans to increase use because we have good feedback for the product and we have good experience with it. So we are increasing use of pfSense. Actually we are moving away from Sophos and more towards pfSense.

The solution is very scalable. It has a failover feature so it's highly skilled. 

I haven't tried yet scaling up pfSense. But my setup is Windows based, and I have some Windows-based applications, so I want it to integrate with the Microsoft Active Directory. I haven't done it yet, but I think it would be good to have that integration.

The scalability is good. You can integrate some nodes of pfSense but it's not very user friendly.

I rate Netgate pfSense's scalability a seven out of ten. 

It's scalable. It implements specific protocols for scalability.

There is a lot of stuff that you can add-on. You can actually write your own APIs to connect to it and so on. So, there is a lot of scalability in pfSense that other products do not have.

Our clients use the solution across 100-200 computers. Some of the implementations are sizeable.

pfSense scales well.

I have found this solution to be scalable.

I've never challenged it. All of my clients are small businesses. It is open-source software, and it runs on whatever appliance you run it on, so whatever computer you run it on, it'll scale up pretty high.

No, and it doesn't matter how many rules or not that you have. It can manage different network interfaces (virtual and physical) without a problem.

We had a scalability issue. The fail over did not work automatically.

No, pfSense can be installed on a decommissioned PC or a brand new 4U quad CPU server. If you need better hardware from the first install it's easy to either simply move the drive to the new firewall or backup/restore to new disks.

We did not encounter any issues with scalability. It depends on the hardware, not the software.

No

No issues encountered.

This solution is scalable.

PfSense is scalable.

The scalability of this solution is perfect.

I am the administrator of the solution and the rest of my organization are end-users.

Scalability-wise, it's great. Often, we need to research and assess the size of an appliance in order to understand what kind of environment the firewall is going to protect. From here, we have the possibility to do an upgrade depending on the type of model.

There is the option to have a firewall that is entry-level or a firewall that supports a huge internet service provider. We have many solutions that we can apply to our customer's environments, but first, we need to do these assessments in order to help us choose the right appliance. One appliance simply can't be upgraded to cover this entire spectrum of needs or the size of demand. This is why we must perform these special assessments.

The scalability is excellent. We don't have any issues as far as that is concerned.

We never had any scalability issues. It's easy to add additional services, or even a second or third pfSense product which works with the others.

We have 50 customers who use this solution.

I think scalability is good enough. 

I do the maintenance for pfSense.

Haven't tested this part since the company hasn't grown much.

There were no scalability issues.

We do have issues as the right hardware needs to be deployed in order to expand correctly in certain areas.

Never.

No issues encountered.

pfSense is a scalable solution.

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

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

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. 

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.

No issues encountered.

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.

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.

We have about 500 people who are taking advantage of the solution within our organization.

The solution is quite scalable. We looked into scaling and found it would be easy enough to achieve if we decided to go ahead and do so in the future.

No issues encountered.

In my experience, this solution is able to increase its scalability.

It is highly scalable. All services are free.

There were no scalability issues.

None as yet, because the solution hasn't reached capacity yet.

There were no issues during the time I used it.

It's a scalable solution. We have 14 computers with more powerful hardware that allows us to deal with larger networks.

Apart from what you see on the interface, you can also use the command line to create a cluster if you need to.

The solution seems to be scalable. 

The stability is good.

Yes I did.

No issues encountered yet.

None

This is linked to our hardware limitation as well, however it has been working fine for company with 30-40 users.

pfSense is scalable. Currently, we have almost 30 people using it in our company.

No issues encountered.

No need to scale in.

The scalability is very good, where you can do an HA configuration and then bring in another box, if necessary. We have ten users in the organization.

We get very little usage and have no plans to increase it.

We were able to scale just fine.