I use Netgate pfSense in my home lab and company. I wanted to learn more about networking so I swapped my ISP router with Netgate pfSense.

Netgate pfSense is a flexible solution. Netgate has its appliances but if I want to use pfSense somewhere else, I can install it into a virtual machine or on my hardware.

I would rate the ease of adding features to Netgate pfSense eight out of ten.

Netgate pfSense has improved the traffic visibility of the devices we are monitoring. Netgate pfSense has also taught me a lot about networking because I got to use an enterprise-grade firewall.

pfSense Plus helps minimize downtime thanks to its ZFS snapshotting feature. This means if we misconfigure something, we can quickly restore our system to a previous working state, reducing downtime.

Both pfSense Plus and the community edition provide visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions.

Netgate pfSense has provided a reduction in downtime of 30 percent thanks to its user-friendly configuration process.

The most valuable features of Netgate pfSense are the ease of use and GUI.

pfSense's dashboard offers basic monitoring, but it lacks centralized management for multiple PSM devices and a unified event interface for various services. Ideally, I'd like a management interface that can handle multiple PSMs, even if they're in different locations. This interface should provide at least status information and basic management features.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for three years.

I would rate the stability of Netgate pfSense nine out of ten. While I did encounter some issues earlier on, they have all since been resolved.

Netgate pfSense is scalable. While we haven't used features like the rack-mounted version or maxed out its capabilities, the system is easily scalable. Upgrading to a more powerful model is simple - just export our settings and import them to the new device.

I had to use the technical support twice and they were extremely quick to respond and deal with my issues.

While I previously switched from UniFi to pfSense for its wider range of features, the gap between them has narrowed somewhat. However, pfSense remains a more enterprise-focused option, allowing for granular control over specific network elements useful in complex environments. UniFi, on the other hand, offers a less detailed view.

While the initial setup was mostly straightforward, some specific configurations proved challenging and lacked intuitiveness. To address these, I consulted YouTube videos and Netgate's documentation.

I would rate the ease of the setup process a seven out of ten.

Installing pfSense took a full day.

I implemented pfSense myself.

pfSense has definitely paid off for me. It's become a rock-solid foundation for my network. Since the memory leak fixes, it's been incredibly stable and requires minimal maintenance.

While pfSense hardware from Netgate might have a higher upfront cost, I've had very little trouble with it. Plus, buying from them directly helps fund the software's development, making it a worthwhile investment in my eyes.

pfSense offers a reasonable total cost of ownership for me. Since I primarily use it at home, I don't need additional features or paid support. However, compared to commercial options like SonicWall, even support costs seem affordable. It's worth noting that advanced features like Suricato or Snort require additional subscriptions for business use, but overall, pfSense remains a cost-effective solution.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

pfSense handles both my home lab, suitable for a small household, and our company's branch office with roughly 150 on-site users and 50 remote VPN connections. It also facilitates a site-to-site VPN connection between this branch and our main New York office.

pfSense is low-maintenance. While regular updates are important, I typically won't need to perform much additional maintenance beyond occasional logins to check the dashboard and install those updates.

pfSense is a stable and feature-rich firewall, but it lacks Layer 7 application filtering, which means you can't easily block specific applications. While I haven't personally needed this feature, it's a known gap in pfSense's functionality.

I recommend pfSense overall to others.

We use it for the backup line for the internet. When the internet is disconnected, we transfer to pfSense.

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

We have not had any problems with it, and we also do not have a need for any new features. If anything, its reporting can be better. Sophos has better reporting than pfSense. Sophos has more detailed information. pfSense is not as detailed. It is summarized.

I have been using pfSense for six months.

It is stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

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

I have not used their support.

The installation of pfSense is very easy. It took two to three hours.

It is easy to maintain. We did not have to do any maintenance of pfSense since we installed it.

It is free. It is open source.

We have not used the VPN capabilities of pfSense. We also did not have a need to integrate pfSense with any service.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

One of our clients operates multiple branches, and we've implemented a solution involving feature and IP address tunnels connecting these branches. The main branch serves as the hub, housing the Central PBX and providing services to the other branches.

We use pfSense to handle VPN connections, extending to remote workers in our various branches as well.

The feature I find most valuable for fulfilling network security requirements is pfBlockerNG. It offers exceptional visibility and filtering capabilities, without the need for dedicated hardware or recurring expenses. Unlike other solutions, pfBlockerNG operates seamlessly and continuously without additional costs or maintenance concerns.

The traffic shaping and bandwidth management features of pfSense significantly enhance our network performance. The inclusion of a QoS wizard simplifies the process, eliminating the complexity often associated with configuring QoS on other platforms like Cisco routers. With pfSense, utilizing the wizard streamlines the setup process, making it accessible and effective for users without requiring an advanced understanding of networking intricacies.

There have been specific incidents where the reporting and monitoring tools of pfSense played a crucial role in identifying and resolving network issues. In one instance, we received complaints about internet connectivity problems affecting productivity across the business. Upon investigation, I discovered that the issue stemmed from excessive bandwidth consumption caused by multiple HD camera streams being watched simultaneously. Utilizing pfSense's reporting and monitoring tools, I quickly pinpointed the source of the problem and implemented measures to alleviate the network congestion. These tools are invaluable for identifying resource-intensive processes and resolving performance issues effectively.

The process of integrating pfSense with other tools and services has proven to be quite straightforward thus far. While there may be a slight learning curve at the outset, particularly for those less familiar with networking concepts, it becomes manageable with experience.

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.

It lacks a solution for SD-WAN integration. I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial. Partnering with trusted antivirus providers such as Bitdefender or Sophos as an add-on feature could enhance the antivirus capabilities of pfSense. Incorporating a centralized management console for easier administration would be a valuable addition.

I have been working with it for over five years.

The stability of pfSense is exceptional. I've only encountered one instance of hardware failure, which was due to an electrical issue. Otherwise, all other deployments have been reliable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

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.

In terms of technical support, I primarily rely on the forums whenever I have a question or need technical information. I've found that the answers I seek are often readily available there. While pfSense does offer paid support packages, I haven't had the opportunity to utilize them yet.

The main difference between Fortinet and pfSense lies in their integration with different vendors. While pfSense offers integration with multiple commercial antivirus solutions, Fortinet primarily provides its own antivirus offering. However, the effectiveness of the antivirus provided by pfSense may not be as high as some other options available in the market. In terms of cost, pfSense offers a one-time payment for cloud services, providing continuous service without ongoing fees. On the other hand, Fortinet's pricing structure may seem appealing initially, but if you wait until close to the license expiration date, the renewal cost significantly increases, which could result in unexpectedly high expenses.

The initial setup was straightforward.

To set up pfSense, you start by configuring firewall rules to allow the necessary traffic. Once that's done, you can explore and download additional security packages from the package manager to enhance your environment's security. The initial setup is quick, typically taking around ten minutes for a basic configuration. However, if you're integrating features like pfBlockerNG, it may take a bit longer as you need to ensure you're not inadvertently blocking any essential services. Despite this, the task can be managed by a single person, such as an IT manager.

Maintenance tasks, such as checking logs and ensuring updates are running smoothly, are typically handled by two designated individuals. They connect to the firewall periodically to perform these checks. While we do have a management console, it's not fully integrated with the pfSense Manager (PSM) solution. Having a dedicated management console that allows remote management of all wireless devices would be ideal, as it would streamline the process of making changes across multiple devices.

The price point is highly competitive. The cost varies depending on the license type, such as licenses for eight to five support or twenty-four seven support. Opting for twenty-four-seven support significantly increases the price, reaching around ten thousand to thirteen hundred dollars. I would rate it four out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.