We use the solution as the main firewall and a proxy for load balancing our web servers.

The best feature of the tool is its all-in-one capabilities. It is a firewall with built-in IDS and IPS, load balancing, and VPN connections. The VPN integration, particularly with internal AD environments, provides stable connections. Centralized authentication is a notable benefit as well. We primarily use it for these features on our server level and are planning to expand their use in our complex environment to connect employees and services. 

Netgate pfSense is cost-effective because you can start using it for free. You can research how to install and configure everything, then install it virtually on any device or partition some hardware. This allows you to start using a firewall without any initial cost.

For larger companies, if you have one or two people skilled with the tool, they can design the complete network using it. That's all you need. You don't have to invest in expensive subscriptions or big hardware setups.

My only suggestion is that Netgate pfSense implement more graphical monitoring. While there are accounts with add-ons for graphical monitoring of data networking, IPS, IDS, and firewall-level events, having more graphical representations like blocks would make the tool more capable. Although it has commercial support and a good GUI, it can still be challenging for someone without firewalls, command lines, and networking knowledge.

Adding features to the solution through packages is somewhat limited. The marketplace doesn't have as many options as you might expect.

One example is the IPS/IDS system. Netgate pfSense still uses Snort 2.9, even though version 3.0 has been out for about a year. Version 3.0 offers important improvements like multi-core support, significantly speeding up processing. The solution seems slow to update to newer versions of these third-party packages.

The tool should provide beta versions with the latest package updates sooner so users can benefit from new features and improvements.

Another issue is the lack of a package marketplace. Despite being open source and customized by many developers globally, there isn't a wide selection of community-created packages. The reasons for this aren't clear to me - it could be security concerns or other factors.

Based on my experience using Netgate pfSense for about four years, I can't say the improvements in our environment are solely due to the product. It's a combination of Netgate pfSense and another monitoring tool we use.

Monitoring is crucial. The easier the monitoring and user interface, the simpler our team can work on and investigate issues. Accessing data becomes more difficult when you use commands or other complex methods.

With our third-party tools, log viewing is very straightforward. The tool logs everything important. This was helpful when our site was slow, and we needed to determine why. The logs from Negate pfSense and our IT systems help us identify issues.

However, the solution's combination with a third-party monitoring tool provides a graphical interface. This makes it much easier to review logs and pinpoint problems.

If Netgate pfSense had a better graphical interface, it would be one of the best products available. I think the graphical interface should be much better and easier to monitor. For example, I encountered errors when I installed HAProxy, a load balancer available in the solution. It was difficult to determine the errors because the backend wasn't working properly. It took us a long time to identify the exact issue because more detailed error information isn't directly available in the current interface. You must go through different steps to trace and see what errors are coming up.

If the tool could improve in this area and provide more error details directly in the interface, that would be beneficial. As for packages, if they could update to newer versions of third-party packages more quickly, that would be helpful. I understand they might not be able to use the very latest versions immediately, but if they could provide updates within three to six months of a new package release, users could try new features sooner.

One additional feature that would be helpful is SAML authentication. Many companies now use Azure or AWS; in our case, we use Office 365 for email and authentication. If SAML authentication was available in pfSense, we could have integrated it with Office 365, allowing users to log in directly using their existing credentials.

The tool can integrate with Azure AD internally, but SAML or two-factor authentication, such as SMS, would provide better security. Firewalls are usually kept behind the scenes and not exposed, but this feature would be useful in some cases.

We've offered Netgate pfSense to many clients, managing it for them and migrating them from existing firewalls. They're generally happy with the change. However, some clients were looking for these additional authentication features. While we can integrate with Office 365, a direct connection option would be beneficial.

I have been working with the product for four years. 

I use Netgate pfSense Plus. We mainly chose it for early updates and commercial support, as advertised on their site. I've only used the support once, though. We started with the free version, which worked fine without issues. After three to four months, we upgraded to the Netgate pfSense Plus environment. Since then, it's been very stable. We've never had problems that required rolling back changes after updates. The updates are very stable - we don't have issues when we update the firewall. So overall, it's been quite stable for us.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten. 

My company has five users using the solution in two locations. The solution's documentation shows that it is scalable. 

There is a lot of support material available on the Internet. You need to do some research. In my experience, I've only had to contact Netgate pfSense support once in the last four years, and that was because I messed up the operating system in our virtualized environment. 

We were previously using Cisco ASA 5500. After three years, we needed to upgrade the hardware and the subscription. At that time, we were moving from an on-premise solution to the cloud, so we decided to try Netgate pfSense. Our vendor recommended it. We wanted to get at least six months of experience with it to ensure its features were stable and it could handle higher loads without breaking. That was one of the main reasons we chose the solution.

The solution's deployment is straightforward. The basic setup took us just about two to three hours. However, designing our custom network configuration took a bit longer. Overall, we got the tool up and running in about three to four days in my environment. There were three people involved in the deployment process: myself and two other team members.

Netgate pfSense doesn't require much maintenance on our end. It's pretty smooth. We monitor alerts. When there's a new update, we test it in our staging environment to see if it affects anything. If it's smooth, we upgrade.

The tool has helped us save money. 

The tool is flexible; even the free, open-source version offers many features. From a cost perspective, even the subscription model for commercial support isn't too costly. However, it's important to have someone knowledgeable about Netgate pfSense to take advantage of it. While there are online resources, a professional or someone experienced can get much more out of the solution. I've heard that the IPS/IDS licenses and other features can be costly.

The solution is very cheap. It's so affordable that even students can use it on their laptops. It's a good, cost-effective product.

The solution has a single web interface, which you could consider a container. Within this container, there are multiple interfaces or sections. You must navigate to different settings to manage different aspects of the system.

So, while it's all contained within one web interface, you can't see or manage everything from a single screen.

I recommend the tool to our clients. We help them implement and support it. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use it as a firewall within our public cloud infrastructure. We use it in particular for IPSec, VPN, and Reverse Proxying HTTP Traffic. We have deployed multiple pfSenses and most of them are configured as HA/Failover.

We wanted to secure traffic between our main office and multiple public cloud data centers and providers. We also wanted to have access to our cloud components via VPN.

We have multiple websites that are proxied via HAProxy and secured via Let’s Encrypt TLS Certificates (generated via the ACME Plugin).

We deploy across multiple virtual data centers that are in different physical locations. Multiple teams have their own deployment. One HA / Failover cluster is the entry point to our websites so there are millions of HTTP requests per month. We also have around 20 to 30 users (Dev and Ops) who use the VPN feature. Behind the pfSense firewalls, there are around 100+ servers and no end users.

We replaced a Sophos UTM 9 Failover Cluster with a pfSense Failover Cluster and we can now make config and certificate changes without downtime. Also, the TLS certificates are rotated automatically.

The performance optimization documentation has improved our organization. The base setup is great but with higher bandwidth, it is really hard to find good documentation on how to tweak the setup to get the most out of your connection.

pfSense sort of gives us a single pane of glass management. We use the same product multiple times so we only need to know one product but it also does not offer a single management platform for all deployments. Whether this is good or bad depends on the point of view. On the one hand, we need to manage multiple setups, but on the other hand, we have a clear separation of concerns and risk zones (if the user account on one system is breached not all systems are affected).

It is hard to pinpoint a specific feature that is the most valuable. I think the big community is a major benefit. Most problems we encounter were already encountered and mostly solved by someone else. Most of the components are open-source tools, so the error messages have hits on Google which makes debugging easier.

pfSense has Plugins and is open source so everybody can add features or improve the product. For example, HAProxy, ACME Plugin, Prometheus-node-exporter, Nmap, etc. I see it as a relatively flexible product. If something is not working via the WebUI, SSH or WebKVM is always there.

Most of the time it is very straightforward to use a feature or plugin, the documentation is great and has examples that are very helpful. If something is a bit tricky, pfSense luckily has a big community. 

Performance Optimization Documentation could use improvement. The base setup is great but with higher bandwidth, it is really hard to find good documentation on how to tweak the setup to get the most out of your connection.

We have been using pfSense for eight years. 

pfSense is a very stable solution. In all the years I had around three instabilities.

Two people handle the maintenance of all pfSense Firewalls.

It can be used in small to big deployments. If the bandwidth hits more than 10GBs or 20GBs you need to optimize it to get good results. I would also not recommend it in very big ISP deployments with TBs of traffic.

I have never used the support for any technical issue. The community forums and Google always were enough.

Positive

In one of our virtual data centers, we had a Sophos UTM 9 as failover but it had some very annoying problems (Let’s Encrypt TLS Cert generation or WAF config reloads resulted in a two-minute downtime).

The old installation was straightforward, but the new installer has some bugs and does not really work.

We implemented it ourselves. 

Previous deployments were done by a System Engineer and the current deployments are done by me (DevOps Engineer) and a System Engineer. It was a one-person job.

We have better uptimes and lower support costs in comparison to the Sophos firewall and we are also saving on licensing fees.

The licensing seems fair. We owned the TAC Lite License for some time. The problem was, that the license is bound to a device ID which does not really work well with VMs where this ID changes sometimes.

We use pfSense Community Edition as our firewall within our public cloud so we only pay for the VM and the traffic.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. It is very good but has some fields in which it can improve.

You need to have an interest in the topic and also (like any security product) it needs regular attention. But it is a reliable firewall and the combination of BSD and ZFS makes it pretty solid.

We use pfSense as an edge router for customers. I use pfSense Plus. We're using Netgate boxes preconfigured with pfSense.

PfSense gives our customers high security, and it's easy to implement. Most customers are looking for a VPN, so we set up a static IP that makes the VPN easy. The benefits of pfSense are immediate. It has a few features that prevent data loss, such as backups and creating rules. It does packet inspection to ensure large known malware does not get through to the end users.

It offers features that help us prevent downtime, but that doesn't apply to our customers. It has failover, so if an internet line were to go bad, you could failover to another line. That doesn't apply to our customers because they can't afford a second internet line. 

I appreciate the depth of what you can do with pfSense and the simplicity of the initial setup. One thing we've done is create an image, and when we get a new customer who needs a device, we can put that image on there. The image gets them up to 90 percent of what we need them to have, and we only have to customize the remaining 10 percent. PfSense is incredibly flexible. It's complicated, but it's incredibly flexible.

We do a lot of managed services and are currently trying to get people off of L2TP VPN. Apparently, we can download a mobile config file from a configured NetGate device, and we're primarily Apple. We've experimented with it on a device that's not a production device, and we can't seem to get the phase one IPSec set correctly so that the Apple config will accept it. 

We've tried looking at the documentation but haven't found anything. While it's not the highest priority, it is rather frustrating. We'd like to do this, and the feature is right there, but we can't get it configured. We certainly don't want to try it on a production machine because it will break the current VPN. 

I would like to download the Apple mobile config so that I can tell it to configure my VPN connection to do that. We have some cross-platform things. So there's also a Windows VPN. You can download a script or a PowerShell, put it on a Windows machine, and it can connect to the VPN. It would be nice if I could say I want Mac only, Windows only, or both. I wish it could configure the IPSec phase one and phase two, or at least give me solid instructions on how to configure that.

It doesn't supply out-of-the-box visibility to drive decisions. You get 75 log lines, so if you're trying to troubleshoot something, you have to look at one log and then another. It integrates with SysLog systems, but our customers are not at the level where they want to pay for some third-party SysLog system. Usually, we can get things taken care of fairly quickly.

I would like to have the ability to control all my devices from one place. With Ubiquiti, you can get a controller that allows you to control all of your Wi-Fi devices, switches, and routers. From one area, you can switch to that customer and see what's happening in their environment. That's not part of pfSense. I understand why it's not because pfSense is open source and community supported. That's something that someone in the community needs to pick up and run with. It's not something the pfSense can easily implement. If they could, that'd be great.

I have used pfSense for 12 years.

I give it an eight out of 10. I've never had any lag or downtime.

The higher-end boxes have a lot of scalability. You can run pfSense on a Unix box and add cards or all sorts of things. If you had a powerful Unix box and hot spot-able, there would be a lot of scalability to it. I primarily use their Netgate appliances from the 1100 to 2100 hundred, so the scalability is limited. 

The old 3100 had a lot more scalability than its replacement the 2100. But the next step up now is to the 4100, which gives you an additional preconfigured WAN port that allows you to easily separate networks. It jumps from $400 to $900.

I rate Netgate support eight out of 10. They're great. I called about an issue with a bad box. They answered the phone and I got somebody who was highly familiar with the product. He had me try several troubleshooting things, identified that the box was bad, and got me a replacement. 

Positive

We’ve used SonicWall and switched due to cost. Though SonicWall is easier to manage, the on-going costs are prohibitive.

The deployment difficulty depends on what you need to do. Let's say you get a box and plug it into your network, but you can't get it to work, so you call the folks at pfSense. They will help you configure it so that you can ping a remote device. That's pretty easy. 

I gave one of the pfSense boxes to one of my people who has minimal knowledge about setting up network devices. He could get it to ping in about 25 minutes. Then, I asked him to add a VLAN, and he's still working on that. That's been two and a half months. If someone needs something to put on their network, it's pretty easy, but if you want the full benefit of a firewall, it may take a while. One person is enough to do it. After deployment, you just need to do some periodic firmware updates. 

PfSense's pricing is reasonable. However, support is relatively expensive for smaller customers, and you need to pay per device to get it. So if Customer A is having an issue, I have to get support, and then I have to get support for Customer B, and so on. It would be nice as a managed services provider to get support for my company rather than individual devices.

I would compare the total cost of ownership to SonicWall. We can compare the basic functions of the Netgate 2100, the model we use most, to the SonicWall 3500. They have very similar functionality. The cost of the 3500 was closer to $4,000.

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. I recommend doing a lot of research or spending the $500 to get the extended support. 

We primarily use the solution as a replacement for commercial firewalls. We use it as an Internet Gateway Firewall product and use the VPN features.

pfSense helped solve the limitations of proprietary software. I find it frustrating when the hardware capabilities of a particular piece of equipment are doled out piecemeal for a fee. For example, when certain features are locked until you pay for them. The proprietary nature and the extra computing power that's used to basically enforce the copyright on some of the competitive products I resent. I like that this has a community option. I'm an open-source advocate. I started using Linux in 1999, and I prefer that developer model.

There are many capabilities within pfSense, that I've never used, and that's true of a lot of products. It's very flexible, and they have plug-ins.  You can add features to pfSense. It is moderately difficult. That said, the web interface is great.

I like that I can use it with OpenVPN. It's not licensed and is not run by some corporation that watches you.

It has an advanced file system so that you can configure it with multiple drives and have redundancy within the router itself. I've never used it as a file server. I've never used it as a data store. It's really more about security and not reliability.

It's keeping the bad guys out and allowing connectivity when you need it.

The configuration could be a little more intuitive. It's a little trickier to set up - things like the OpenVPN - than it should be. However, once you get this configured, it seems solid as a rock, and it just works. 

The solution needs better error messages in the VPN. It's kind of a bear to configure. That could be streamlined or smoothed out. That said, I do not do this 40 hours a week like some people. I wear a lot of different hats. Still, when it comes to configuring, it always seems to be a little more involved. 

I've been using the solution for three or four years. 

The solution has been very solid.The BSD file system is a little more fragile than a Linux file system. I've had situations where a power failure causes a hard drive not to get corrupted but to need to run maintenance on it when it reboots. However, that's not a pfSense issue. Overall, it's been great.

I'm not a power user. For me, the capabilities are fine. It runs pretty fast even on modest hardware. 

Technical support was good. It was way better than the twenty-four hours that the contract said. They usually get back to me in a matter of a few minutes. 

They are very good at answering and solving specific problems. If something doesn't work, you can give them access. They can figure it out and make it work. 

I was less satisfied when I tried to ask a question like, "Is this the best way to have this configured?" It's a slippery slope of going beyond the typical tech support and actually getting consulting on it. I understand that maybe that's not their problem. However, it did seem like there's this hard wall where they will answer specific questions, but they are not going to give you general consulting advice about how to use the product. That is a little frustrating. 

Positive

I've used SonicWall and I've used various commercial firewalls, for example, Cisco. However, I haven't evaluated other things in the same category based on open source. There are a lot of them; I haven't looked at anything else, to be honest.

It's easy to get it going as a firewall. It's moderately difficult to get the VPN features running. I was able to deploy it within a couple of days. 

Maintenance is needed for upgrades or renewal of certificates.

I managed the setup myself with the help of the pfSense support staff. 

I use the community version, although there is a paid version as well. I've also downloaded it, registered myself, and paid for it to get support. I'm not sure of the exact features that differ between free and paid. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The only shortcomings are somewhat obscure configuration issues. However, the scope of what they're trying to do is very good. While there could be more polish on some configurations, it's very capable and very flexible. 

If I had to do it over again, I would probably have actually gotten the hardware from NetGate. You're paying for the support, and bundling the hardware and support together might be better. I sense that you'd kick yourself up a notch in terms of the priority that they give you. Not that there's ever been a problem. Getting the hardware directly from pfSense might cut out the middleman and reduce the possibility of issues when something goes south. Other than that, I'm a pretty fairly satisfied customer.

I have two different use cases. I use it as a firewall and security appliance. I also use it in layer three virtual routing scenarios.

The thing that sets pfSense apart from other competitors is the flexibility that it offers. You have a package manager, and there are so many options to choose from -whether it's security, a plugin, or even networking technologies. pfSense supports VPNs. It supports VLANs. It can be virtualized. It can run on physical hardware. You can be agnostic as to which vendors you're using. It is interoperable. It's a very versatile package and system. It's very easy to add features and configure them.

There's a graphical user interface that can be managed and used for almost every feature configuration item and function. There's also documentation on pfSense and NetGate's websites that outlines every configuration item package and configuration setting in extreme detail. There's also a strong community. The community has a support forum online. It is very easy to use.

I've witnessed the benefits pretty quickly. I started using it in production in 2012. Prior to that, I had used it personally from 2009 to 2011. That gave me time to kick the tires and see how it could be used. In 2012, there were very limited deployments of pfSense in the enterprise industry, and support was available, but not like it is now. So, by being able to use it personally, I saw where the benefit was. Then, when we deployed it in a production or enterprise environment, we were able to realize the benefits immediately. And those benefits were: security, supportability, and sustainability. Regarding security, it's backed with BSD, a well-known, tried and tested operating system, and is up to date on patches. It is much more user-friendly to configure than the competition, be it from Juniper or Cisco, HP or the other competitors that are out there. Sustainability is an extreme benefit. The feature parity, along with the cost and flexibility of being able to provide a variety of different hardware networking methods, pretty much sealed the deal.

The solution prevents data loss. pfSense offers an auto backup system, so your configuration and systems that you're running by default can be synchronized with pfSense and their cloud product, meaning that if you suffer a failure or a configuration issue that makes you need to roll back, you can actually rebuild a device or virtual appliance in a matter of minutes and have it back up and running just as it was. As far as other building features, it runs BSD, So you can use SFTP, which is a secure transfer protocol, as well as any other industry standard backup product. The main function that's built-in is the auto backup and restore functionality, which we use from time to time, and it's very helpful.

I use both the community and Plus versions of pfSense. For enterprise and production systems, I use pfSense Plus. I use that on both physical and virtual hardware. It works great. The pfSense community edition would be more for a testing environment or a personal deployment.

pfSense features that help to minimize downtime. pfSense comes with opportunities to configure for high availability. In the event of a failure, there are ways to bounce from one appliance or virtual appliance to the other. There is full documentation for that. It uses open standards. Also, on the individual appliances, there are wizards and configurations for WAN and multi-WAN failover bonding or anything in between. That includes failover for your Layer 3 routing firewall rules, filters, et cetera. 

pfSense provides visibility that enables users to make data-driven decisions. pfSense supports many different monitoring and logging types. Out of the box, it can monitor. It also supports Syslog. It supports SMPP. You can create baseline reports and watch trends, and those trends could help you be prepared for an increase in bandwidth, routing capacity, or even CPU utilization for beefing up your security rules.

The visibility in pfSense helps you to optimize performance. You can get an accurate picture of what bandwidth is being used and determine where the bottleneck is. Performance isn't just bandwidth. It could be routing. It could be applications. It could even be firewall rules. This provides visibility into issues. 

I've used pfSense on the Amazon EC two virtual machines in a limited capacity. I don't have any customers currently that are in production on AWS. However, if I did, I would certainly use their supported appliance or their virtual appliance on the marketplace. 

Having a single pane of glass management is on their roadmap. If you have multiple instances, you have to manage these deployments across a wide area. I'm required to keep a third-party product.

The main feature that I could see them adding would be a management interface that lets me manage multiple pfSense instances. As an MSP or consultant, it would be very helpful if I could manage them all from one place. 

There are some modernization efforts on the operating system that are needed. Possibly looking at Linux-based operating systems to allow newer features, better hardware support, et cetera, would increase performance. 

They should continue to expand in bracing the software and appliance model and expanding reach to cloud providers other than just Amazon. It would be nice if they had a supported appliance on GCP as well. I have customers on Google Cloud, and this would be helpful.

They need a more streamlined or documented approach to how they would like to see virtualized or alternate hardware deployments supported. If I build my own hardware, sometimes I don't know what the best type of hardware is to go with, and having some streamlined documentation and explaining the best practices would be helpful.

I've been using pfSense since 2012.

The solution is extremely stable. I've never had a stability problem.

The scalability is excellent. However, when you get past a ten-gigabit connection, and we are seeing the opportunity for 20 and 100 connectivity methods, that's a bit of a struggle right now.

Technical support is fast and accurate. I would rate them as having the highest level of customer service from my experience working with customer service. They are excellent.

Positive

I've been in the industry since the late 90s. I've worked with a variety of solutions, including Cisco, Barracuda, Juniper, and more. pfSense is easy to use and much more flexible. It really cuts down your speed to value and time to delivery. There's not much of a comparison at all.

The initial deployment is extremely easy. If you're a professional in the networking industry and you have a working knowledge of OSI model networking, IP address routing, and firewalling, you'll be fine. The interface is the easiest and most user-friendly on the market. 

For a small to medium-sized business, if I already have accurate information on their Internet connectivity and subnetting, I can get it up pretty fast. You can be up and running in a matter of hours. One person can do a deployment.

There may be some maintenance needed. It depends on what type of agreement I have. Some customers are technically astute enough to handle basic maintenance tasks like updates, security patches, and package updates on a regular basis. If not, I offer a service where I can also manage that for them.

The pricing model is good. It's right about where it needs to be. The total cost of ownership is low and the value is high.

I'm a pfSense customer.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

If users are interested in pfSense, they should try the community edition. It's free to download, and you can just get started and try it out. Moving forward, I wouldn't hesitate at taking a look at the different types of hardware that they have, and to talk to sales.

We're primarily using the solution for testing. We're also using it internally at our own site, mostly as a reverse proxy, but also for the speed. Not all firewalls have 2.5 and and ten gig WAN ports.

The format, the layout and the interface are excellent. We really like that it is quite simple to use and straightforward. The quality, in particular, the ones we have is the Netgate unit, is particularly robust in terms of the look and feel as well as their speed and quality.

We appreciate its flexibility. Its usability is great.

We were able to witness positive results from the product pretty much immediately.

Its SD-WAN capabilities are great. The onboard storage is nice for keeping configs and logs, et cetera.

We do get a single pane of glass for management. It's well laid out and provides clear visibility into management features. Everything is easy to find within the menu bars and options. It is all very logical.

We're using the Plus version with Netgate.

pfSense does provide features to help minimize downtime. There's a failover availability, and there are high availability configurations. We don't use that; however, that's good to have if you need it. Having multiple endpoints or configurations on all of the ports is possible. It helps keep up our site and other sites.

With the logging capabilities, the solution provides visibility and enables you to make data-driven decisions. A lot of our clients are smaller, so they are nowhere near the limits of what pfSense can do by any means. 

The ease of changing parameters helps us optimize performance. It's a lot easier than what can be done with competitors, for sure. 

The solution could improve by adding in some sort of user account credentials in the sense of accommodating more levels of users. From what I've found, everybody has basically the same access. 

A formal partnership with some sort of VPN vendor, like OpenVPN, would be nice.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years. 

The stability is very good. there is no lagging or crashing. It's reliable. 

The scalability is good. However, we and our clients aren't too large. 

I've never needed to contact technical support. 

In the past, we have used Fortinet devices. pfSense is definitely easier to configure and use. It doesn't have quite the same feature set. However, that's fine - you don't always need the full feature set. We find that the add-ons that are available are fine. You just have to find them from a third party. 

The initial deployment was easy.

There isn't any maintenance needed beyond updates. The base install probably took ten minutes and to configure it properly takes two to three hours with some internal servers and multiple ISPs. You just need one person to handle the process. 

I'm using pfSense via Netgate devices, which are reasonably priced. The solution seems to be reasonable. It's well-priced for what you get. It's a bit lower than the competition if you are trying to gauge the cost of ownership. And it adapts well to different speeds.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

I'd rate pfSense eight out of ten.

If a person is familiar with firewalls, they'll be fine adopting it. The interface is pretty easy.

We use our Netgate appliance in our office and resell Netgate appliances and services.

We realized the benefits of pfSense immediately. For example, we needed to connect two ISP connections to use them simultaneously in the office without separating the network. We immediately saw the benefit upon installation. Otherwise, we would have two different connection lines and need to separate the users between the two networks. With pfSense, we could get that benefit instantly. 

Some applications also deliver benefits over time in addition to the immediate benefit on the routing side of an installation. Eventually, you will see other benefits in creating certain policies that apply to users, such as the firewall's filtering capabilities.

In terms of data loss, the ability to create policies that would be a step toward intrusion prevention or malware blocking would be a secondary benefit. As I understand, pfSense per se is Netgate and we have a data loss feature in itself. As a layer of protection, then that creates a layer of protection against data loss.

PfSense offers single-pane-of-glass management. When you log into the system, you immediately see this dashboard, which shows the resources and utilization of the pfSense device. The most important information is in that dashboard. In our case, we have a standby monitor where IT support would look at it. If something is created there, that gives them an idea of how that something is set up. 

The pfSense Plus edition has features that prevent downtime, such as load balancing. We can automatically route traffic to another ISP should the primary or the secondary be down. It's the most important feature for some of our clients. It prevents downtime because it will automatically route to the active connection. 

We have to go through a step that gives you visibility into certain alarms that indicate a possible security issue. That feature provides visibility into potential network security issues. We run servers with applications that are critical to office operations. When monitoring the network, the server is the priority.  Having clear protection ensures productivity because sometimes issues inside the application impact the use inside the office and those outside the office. PfSense is able to add a layer of protection to these application servers.

The most valuable feature is the routing capability. We're primarily using the appliance as a router to provide DNS and multi-WAN routing. Flexibility is also critical. The solution provides flexibility in terms of creating firewall rules. It's extensive, which means you can create several rules with different elements involving firewall policies.

It's easy to add features to pfSense. When I started, I didn't have a networking background, but I was able to follow the materials and learn through hands-on practice. The interface is easy to navigate and understandable.

The intrusion protection system is provided by a third-party provider that's verified by pfSense. It would be best to have an option for IPS because when you deploy pfSense to a SOC, you have to subscribe to another IPS provider.  The IPS should be a default feature. On the other hand, that's also the benefit of pfSense because you can also acquire another IPS solution. 

We started using Netgate in 2016, so we have used it for almost nine years.

I can only think of one instance where stability would be a problem, and that's the power supply. We have tested the hardware for a single power supply, so if it was deployed in a location where the power supply is unstable and without the proper UPS, then it will cause problems. That is not due to pfSense per se. It requires a redundant power supply on the end user side to provide sufficient UPS or some sort of backup. On the software side, I don't recall a major incident where the software got corrupted.

Sometimes, it could get corrupted in the course of maintenance. For example, if the logs are not cleared, and the storage becomes full over time. 

The hardware is not scalable. Normally, we ask clients to project where they will be in two or three years and advise them to buy a model that fits their requirements. If you already have fixed hardware but you haven't factored in the number of users, you will hit a wall. PfSense has some scalability, but it depends on your hardware. 

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. When you acquire Netgate hardware, you gain access to online support. We've had some issues that couldn't be resolved, so we had to raise a ticket to online support. The feedback was quick, and we didn't have any major issues left unresolved because the online support was effective.

Positive

We deployed certain prescribed network equipment, like the Fortinet firewall. We started using pfSense Community Edition because it's free and highly available, but we saw the benefit of the commercial version, which is more stable, so we decided to upgrade to that. 

When we started, we were already using the community version. It took some time because we have some IT personnel. Sometimes, when we have just hired an IT staff member, and we introduce them to pfSense, I see that they can easily adapt or understand the features and how to manage the firewall. They can install the community version and play with it. The installation is easy and staff can learn it hands-on.

We deployed it in-house, but when we hire some IT support, we require them to have some exposure to pfSense. The pfSense community edition is pretty popular, so we don't have much use for consultants. We provide the service because we understand pfSense.

PfSense is easy to maintain. You only need to modify the configuration when there are additions to the network or you need to change the firewall rules. Other than that, the features and systems don't require much maintenance. 

In the Philippines, most users are small or medium-sized enterprises. Small businesses also need a level of protection, so sometimes, what they need is basic protection. For example, they must protect their ports so they cannot be scanned from outside and layered protection and filtering. They would like something without a recurring cost, which pfSense can provide for basic features. 

PfSense offers solid value for small and medium enterprises, so it's highly applicable. It serves our purpose even in our use case. We have certain critical applications that must be protected, and the pricing is good for us. The good thing about pfSense is that it supports layer three or IPSec VPN at no additional cost. That in itself is a good feature for small and medium enterprises, and we can deploy VPN at no additional cost. We can deploy other applications, adding a layer of VPN without much expense.

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. 

We use pfSense for IT security and load balancing the internet traffic across our three lines. We also use a package available in pfSense called pfBlocker that blocks some DNS records. For example, it doesn't allow ads to appear on the website. We have a site-to-site VPN with our different sites. 

The benefits from pfSense were immediate. We tested pfSense on a third-party machine, and soon after, we purchased a Netgate machine. PfSense prevents data loss by blocking malicious sites or apps with pfBlocker and the Suricata package, which acts as an IPS. 

PfSense has multiple WAN ports, helping to reduce downtime. We can set multiple Internet lines. If one line has an issue, we can still access the Internet from the other or communicate with the other sites. We also have a high availability feature with pfSense. For example, if we have two or three pfSense devices, we can have high availability. If one goes down, we can still work with the other one.

The visibility that pfSense has enables us to make data-driven decisions. From the logs, we can see blocked or allowed traffic. We generally see what goes into the firewall and change the rules or configuration. 

From the dashboard, we can see the utilization and how our lines behave during working hours. We can see if we need a higher-performance device, a line upgrade, or a feature.

I like pfBlocker and the ability to install more packages from the pfSense console. It's easy to add features, but you can check the user communities and videos if you encounter any difficulties. You have the flexibility to choose VPNs with WireGuard or OpenVPN and make firewall rules. It's easy to create a group with multiple IPs, hostnames, or areas and create a rule for that group.

You can make your own configurations on every module and create custom packages, which makes it more flexible. The dashboard is customizable, so you can create your dashboard based on what you would like to see and have all the data there on the dashboard. You can start and stop everything on the dashboard. 

PfSense could better utilize the interface and dashboard and include some packages in the built-in solution. For example, pfSense is sharing some other packages. You have to download and configure them within the package manager of pfSense. Some of those important ones, like the IPS and the monitor, could be installed on the solution's image and configured.

I have used pfSense for four years in business and at home.

I didn't notice any performance issues. 

pfSense is scalable.

I rate Netgate support nine out of 10. I have contacted them twice in the last six months, and they responded and resolved my issue quickly. 

Positive

We used UniFi UDM, Hillstone, and OPNsense, which is similar to pfSense.

Deploying pfSense is straightforward. It took about an hour to install and configure. After deployment, the only maintenance required is periodically checking for new updates or security fixes. 

pfSense's price is excellent and similar to its competitors. It has a low total cost of ownership for all these features. 

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. 

I use pfSense as a firewall for a university client with 10,000 to 12,000 users. I'm a consultant to the client, and they haven't introduced the product to their IT team. They are only starting to train themselves and use it to secure their environment from end to end. 

One of the biggest benefits is cost savings. It has reduced operating costs compared to Sophos by more than 50 percent. PfSense Plus helped us minimize downtime. I can configure it for high availability, and the machines are simple and reliable. The Netgear devices work well. They stay up. I built a cluster, and they work seamlessly. 

I like how affordable and flexible pfSense is. I can achieve the protection I need in a flexible manner. I enjoy using pfSense. It's effective and solid.

Two key areas need improvement: the traffic profile and better centralized management. It would be great if we could have a single pane of glass for managing multiple appliances running in different locations. Sophos has much better centralized management, but you're paying an arm and a leg for it.

The management is good, but it's quite basic. If I have multiple instances deployed, I can't manage the information like I would when I use something like Sophos Central to manage multiple devices in different locations. 

The portal is still not well-tuned. There are still issues regarding implementation and its effectiveness. But besides that, everything else is great, from the purchase to implementation, setup, etc. Only the portal needs a lot of work.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for stability.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for scalability. It's highly scalable. 

I have not contacted Netgate support yet, but I've heard that the technical support is excellent. I can't afford it.

We were using Sophos but switched due to the price. I was looking for a more affordable firewall solution, which brought me to pfSense. I sought something to replace our existing device. We needed something to do the same thing I was doing, including firewall, IPS, etc., but that wouldn't cost me as much as Sophos did.

PfSense isn't very easy, but if you know what you're doing and know what you're looking for, you can get it done. It's technical compared to Sophos. It's not difficult. It's just more technical.

PfSense was straightforward. The infrastructure is complex, but the implementation was straightforward for me. Maybe that's because I've had years of experience in IT infrastructure deployment. 

The deployment time depends on the features you want to implement. It took me about a week. The initial setup took less than two hours, but it took me about a week to finish the tune-up. I mostly deployed it by myself. I just looked up online videos from experts and understood what to do next. After deployment, it requires the occasional firmware update. That's it.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for affordability. The company did the price review of Sophos and just took it out of the wall. Most of our clients have recommended Netgate. The total cost of ownership is excellent. It makes a lot of sense for SMEs. I pay a little bit on top. The Netgate infrastructure is much easier to approach. 

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. I recommend it to others. It's affordable and not that difficult to set up or manage. You need to be certified to use Sophos, but we don't need any specific certifications to own or manage pfSense.

I have three firewalls running my entire county and 11 smaller versions of the firewalls doing OpenVPN tunnels to my remote sites through StarLink. 

PfSense has been highly flexible, and it's worked out great for us for the most part. The Plus version has support, which we will pay for since it is our edge firewall. I have not had an issue with adding features.

We're doing a lot of OpenVPN tunnels, and some of the fields in the OpenVPN setup on the server side do not lend themselves to multiple sites. It's kind of ugly. It's a big list of allowed IP addresses. I'd much rather see that via the table individually. 

The individual firewalls have a single pane of glass view, but we have so many of them. You need to log into each to manage them.

 I'm officially about two years into using pfSense and one year in production.

I have not had any crashes happen. 

Overall, I've been happy with these firewalls.

I rate Netgate support eight out of 10. They were highly responsive. It was strictly email support. I didn't buy phone support.

We were running a Sophos firewall as the edge router of everything we did, and it wasn't meeting our expectations. I've used Cisco firewalls for most of my career. The Sophos firewall was underpowered and overburdened. It was constantly causing issues, such as filling up the logs and crashing the firewall in the middle of the day. I have not had that issue with the pfSense.

It was harder to order them than it was to deploy them. As a county government, we ran into purchasing issues, but we ultimately managed to make it happen. It took us about three months to deploy all of them. After deployment, you need to update the firewall codes and back it up. That's pretty typical.

PfSense was quite a bit less expensive than some other alternatives, and it's worked as well as we could hope. We have three 1500s and 11 of the 4100s. The total cost of ownership has been pretty beneficial.

We looked at some other options. I'm a Cisco guy, but pfSense firewalls provide more bang for your buck. 

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10.