I work for a small business. We have a number of different remote sites, so I use the solution as my primary firewall. I use it as a way for my remote sites to connect back to the main office via VPN.

The VPN features are the most valuable aspects of the solution.

It's pretty flexible. It does everything I need it to do. My use cases are somewhat limited.

I do like how easy it is to restore if you lose a router. I lost a firewall over the weekend at one of my remote sites. As of right now, I'm setting up a new piece of hardware and restoring it. It couldn't be more simple.

There are features in pfSense that help me to prevent data loss. It's relatively easy for me to back up what I need. I've created a pretty simple script that I run on a computer inside of my network that reaches out to all of the different pfSense firewalls that I use. It grabs a config file. And that's pretty simple. It's a script that runs daily. I could probably even run it weekly. It simply reaches out and grabs these things and backs them up. Data loss is not something that I'm really concerned about as long as I have a good backup, which I do, and I check it regularly.

It’s easy to add features to pfSense and to configure them. I don't add a lot to pfSense with regard to the package manager that it comes with. That said, the packages that I do use are easy to install, easy to update, and easy to configure.

I witnessed the benefits of pfSense immediately. I have what I consider an enterprise-class firewall and routing stack at a pretty reasonable price.

pfSense gives you a single pane of glass type of management. You can see pretty much most things inside of the firewall, everything from bandwidth charts to DHCP leases - anything you've set up with regards to DNS. It's got pretty good logging features. I wind up sending most of the Syslog information from pfSense to third-party logging software. That’s why I'm not really using it to peer through logs. However, to do quick checks, I'll use it. The UI is pretty similar to Netgate. It makes a lot of sense.

pfSense provides features that help minimize downtime. The high availability configuration allows me to mitigate downtime. I've worked with their deployment team to set that up and also set up the LAN. Regardless of whether or not I lose a firewall or an Internet connection, my connection to the Internet remains pretty resilient.

The visibility in pfSense helps optimize performance. I'm primarily using it to see how our bandwidth is being utilized. Outside of that, I'm not using pfSense to visualize a ton of data. I offload pfSense data to third-party software that I use to visualize things that are happening on my network. If I just pop in and take a quick glance at what might be going on in my network, it's sufficient.

I'm hard-pressed to think of a needed additional feature. It would be nice to see which packages are officially from pfSense and which are from a third party in the package manager.

I've been using the solution for more than a decade. 

The stability is rock solid. 

I haven't really had to scale my deployment. My deployment was for an in-place network. My network hasn't changed much as I've redeployed the pfSense over the years.

The speed of response is good. It was well within the SLA. 

They were incredibly helpful. They answered follow-up questions in a timely manner. I was very pleased. I have had to use it very minimally. However, I was very pleased with how it worked.

Positive

I may have used something different a decade ago. Since then, I've been using pfSense. We're a small business. I do have some Cisco hardware, however, I'm not using it on my edge network. It's mostly just for switching.

I typically buy the hardware myself for the installation. I have one or two pfSense appliances. One is sitting on a rack as a backup unit in case I need it. I have a couple in the field. At the end of the day, if I'm going to buy the appliance, I get a year or two of CE. I'd much rather just buy the hardware myself and purchase a CE or get a Plus license.

It's incredibly easy to deploy. Even for a new engineer, it would be pretty simple. 

I am in the process of restoring one. It took me 20 minutes to flash the image to a thumb drive, install it on the device, boot the device, restore the configuration backup, and have it up and running. I'm familiar with the hardware that I purchased, and I take and test good backups. That said, the process is incredibly easy. It takes very little time to deploy something that has failed. 

With regard to a new setup, it's impossible for me to answer broadly; however, even then, it's not a long time. It just depends on how sophisticated a given user's network is.

There is very little maintenance outside of updating the software. 

I deployed devices to our remote sites myself. I used Netgate Professional Services to help deploy a high availability stack at our main office, and they were outstanding to work with.

Anybody not using it, at least at the small or medium business level, is crazy. There's a significant return on investment. We're getting a pretty state-of-the-art device that runs OpenVPN and some other VPN software. It's not Cisco. It's not Juniper or any of the others out there. However, I keep my ear to the ground with regard to vulnerabilities generally out there, and it seems like there are far more vulnerabilities that you hear about day-to-day in their competitors than in their software. At the enterprise level, there may be some more sophisticated and purpose-built solutions. That said, pfSense meets all of my needs. I can't imagine it not meeting the needs of anybody in a business my size and slightly bigger or slightly smaller.

The licensing is fair. 

I'm a pfSense customer.

There are two versions of pfSense. The plus version, which is paid, and the community edition, which is free. I primarily use plus.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

Our use case is fairly minimal. We've been slowly replacing them. We're down to one unit. However, we use it for a site-to-site VPN to another location in New York for Michigan, and we use it for OpenVPN connections with some of our third-party consultants.

Their firewall features are pretty flexible and are nice to work with.

When you get a configuration that's working, as long as you don't do High Availability, then they're they're pretty rock solid. You just set and forget. They've got a lot of really nice wizards to help with configurations of things.

There are features to help prevent data loss.

pfSense gives users a single pane of glass. They do a good job of giving a very well-done graphical interface.

It provides features that help to minimize downtime. It's a good solid firewall as a standalone firewall. It also allows you to do backups to the config, and I like the fact that it maintains a running history of changes that are made. That is helpful.

pfSense provides visibility that enables users to make data-driven decisions. Of course, it depends on what layer you're talking about. It provides good visibility when it comes to how much data is being moved. If you have full logging turned on you can get a pretty good idea of what kind of traffic is going in from where to where.

pfSense flexibility overall is pretty good. They are making some really big improvements. That said, they're a long way from enterprise. They advertise things that they don't have. I've worked for probably 30% of the Corporate 100, and they won't tolerate the high availability and it being as buggy as it is. The fact that if you configure it incorrectly without any visual indications that it's not done in the way Netscape does, then it will not only break the firewall, it will break both firewalls. The only way you can even try to recover is by getting new images from Netgate. You have to open up a tech support case, download the image for, then reimage the firewalls, and reapply your configuration. The fact that you can completely brick your firewalls just by having a configuration that they allow, and they don't even don't tell you there's a problem until they both go down. That's totally unacceptable in an enterprise. As a standalone firewall, they're excellent. As an enterprise, we're not touching it with a ten-foot pole.

It’s difficult to configure and use add-on features. It's really easy to add them. On the website, they say “Oh, we do this, this, and this.” However, they do a lot through third-party add-ons. The problem is, if there's any problems at all, the very first thing they want you to do is disable those add-ons. So that's not really supporting anything.

There are two ways that firewalls are viewed: talking to the firewall and talking through the firewall. If you're talking about “to the firewall,” then it's a very robust, very secure firewall. However, it doesn't have things that they claim helps with protecting data, most of it's third party. If you want to do all these things that are typically associated with enterprise-level firewalls, most of them are done by a third party. It's not actually cooked into their product.

I like their OSPF. I wish it was more current. The only bugs that are in the OSPF are ones that have been known about for almost two years. Maybe they're they're victims of their own success. Their growth curve has outstripped their technical support and has outstripped their ability to develop. They're just growing so fast. They're trying to do everything.

Updates from third parties can take too long. For example, if there's a problem with a package and no available update is available, you have to wait. Since it's via a third party, there's no definable schedule, as the update needs to come from a third-party open organization with no financial interest to make the process faster. Sometimes, there's more finger-pointing than resolution.

In, OSPF, they give you lots of information. However, when it comes to hardcore troubleshooting of different routing zones or things like that, then you had to keep dropping down to the CLI in order to get it. And that's where your experience can change quite a bit. If you're running OSPF on Cumulus or some of the other big routing or switching solutions, then they're running much newer versions of it, which are all bug-patched and fixed. However, pfSense is running on an operating system that is not theirs. They don't necessarily have full control over it.

When you get a real enterprise firewall, and when you hook up the redundancy, you expect redundancy to work and be predictable. And never ever will the redundancy crash your system. If you don't create the interfaces in the exact same order on both firewalls every single time, if so much as one interface is out of order, if the command line is different because of the way the operating system works, you will slowly corrupt your configuration to the point where it'll break.

I've used the solution for five years. 

In a non-HA mode, they are very, very stable. In High Availability (HA)-mode, you can break them both to where they're unrecoverable until you can download an image and have to reimage the firewall. You can't recover the firewall on its own. It's just completely unrecoverable. That's only in HA-mode. Otherwise, I've never seen one have a problem. It's just rock solid.

pfSense is okay for small or medium companies. Netgate doesn't come anywhere close to the scalability that its competitors do. I've got FortiGate firewalls where I can get 200 gig Ethernet interfaces. Netgate is a nice entry-level firewall, but it's not enterprise. They don't do custom hardware. They don't sell any appliances that come close to what the competitors can do. 

I'd prefer if they offered both hardware and software support so that were aren't worried about one over the other.

I literally ran to that problem where one device died, and the other one was still still good but was a little flaky. I just wanted to move the good hard drive over to it, and they told me I couldn't since the one hard drive is married to the other. And that they won't cover the hardware either. The only thing they do is tell us how much it costs to fix it. It's just the hassle of doing that.

In terms of hardware issues, they need to be more responsive. For example, we pay an extra $1000 a year just so that, if any FortiGate firewall dies, they're here, within six hours, 24/7 with a new firewall. pfSense may not be big enough to afford to offer things like that. I get that. However, to at least have the option to overnight a fix if something dies. It becomes less about the firewall than about the loss of service. 

If something goes down, the last thing you want to hear is "Send it to us and we'll take a look." When we're down, that's $8000 an hour on a $1500 firewall. We need it fixed. We don't have time for someone to look at the hardware when we're down. 

Technical support is all over the place. I might open up a ticket, and somebody might contact me within minutes, or it might be a day later. Once, Ispent one month alone, 300 hours, working on a problem, only to narrow it down and tell them what the problem was as they weren't aware of it. 

That said, it's hit-and-miss. Sometimes, support is exceptional, and sometimes, they are well below average. 

Neutral

I've worked with probably 10 to 12 different vendors. I've been in the computer industry for 44 years. I've done over 500 Cisco firewalls and about a dozen pfSense. My background is primarily in Cisco and Fortinet. I've also used Ubiquiti, among others.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. It's one of the easier firewalls to work with on simple configurations. They've done a really good job with that.

We don't have a simple configuration. The first one had 10 routed VLANs with different levels of security access and OSPF routing for dynamic routing. Also, we had some very customized NAT that we had to do a lot of entries on as we're a software as a service.

If you're not running any third-party packages, there is no maintenance needed. You simply want to make sure you get a backup periodically. It's mostly set and forget other than upgrades. 

The total cost of ownership is okay. They do VPNs very well. Users get a lot of bang for their buck with the part that handles VPN.

They don't charge enough. Compared to FortiGate or Cisco, pfSense is way cheaper, probably around ten cents to the dollar. If you want to compare it against a MicroTik solution, then they're probably a little bit more expensive. At that point, we're talking about apples and oranges.

If you're just looking for a standalone firewall that does VPN really well and has good firewall services, and as long as you don't introduce anything fancy to it, then it's it's probably one of the best deals in the market. It's only when you get into the fancier things, the advanced dynamic routing, the high availability, and other things that probably 90% of the purchasers don't use will be where there may be problems.

From an end-user standpoint, I'd rather them have a much better warranty and hire more technical support people, or at least charge more for the support contracts to have it include hardware. For example, they will make a particular model, and it might no longer even be sold. However, it will still run the newest software. That said, if you have any issues, you can't get support on it. 

There are two versions of pfSense. The plus version, which is a paid one, and the community, which is free. I only use the paid one.

Overall, they're a good entry-level firewall. For the majority of small businesses, they'd be fine. They're easy to maintain. They're easy to install. If a company has no fancy routing and just got a couple of indoor subnets, it's great.  

If you're talking about a multiple-site metropolitan area network where you get 50, 60, 100+ locations, they're completely out of their depth. 

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

We use the solution as a gateway appliance for our own corporate network as well as that for many of our clients. It has become our go-to gateway appliance for clients when they're looking to to have a new network stack installed.

Many of our clients are smaller. However, the big features for them are usually the built-in OpenVPN server for client-based VPN access. The site-to-site links and IPsec site-to-site connectivity are great.

The flexibility is one of the reasons it's become our go-to unit. We don't, unfortunately, get to use so much of its flexibility on a regular basis. That said, I love the fact that it can basically do whatever we need it to do all in one piece of gear.

It's relatively easy to add additional features. They have an application store that already has tools that you can add to pfSense as you need them. At this point, there are 30 or 40 or more of them.

In the long term, when you buy a piece of hardware, you basically get updates for that device for the life of that device. You're not paying for additional licenses throughout the life of that device. You just pay for it once. We do Meraki devices as well, and, every year or few years you need a license. You have to renew. 

There are some features in pfSense that help you to prevent data loss. Even just on the firewall side, you can limit what people are able to reach out to. The outbound filtering has a massive effect on that. They also have some other web filtering tools built-in; however, we don't typically use those. We have other tools for that.

pfSense offers a single pane of glass type of management per client site.

The solution does provide features that help minimize downtime. We don't use these features. However, we know they are available. We have the ability to offer that service. You can hook up two of the gateways in tandem. That way, if one of them ever does fail, it automatically fails over to the other functioning unit. 

pfSense provides visibility that enables users to make data-driven decisions. You can look at the amount of bandwidth used by the device as a whole or as a client. If there's a problem or if Netgate isn't performing per the client's wishes, we can easily make an assessment.

The visibility in pfSense helps optimize performance. There are a lot of different visualization aspects, including some bandwidth charts as well as some other built-in ways of looking at the way the data or information is flowing through the system, which definitely allows for that.

Something that we would really love to see is a real single pane of glass management for multiple clients. Having a reseller portal of some kind that allows us to easily remotely access all the different pfSense gateways that we have out there (like Meraki does with their equipment) would be ideal. Right now, we have to manage client by client and just maintain access per site, basically.

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

They are super stable units. I have not had a single complaint about them.

They are definitely scalable. You can add your own additional storage to them. You can add additional memory to them if need be. They're very scalable, considering what you see in the rest of the gateway appliance market. Those are usually just static boxes where you get what you get, and that's it.

I have contacted support once. I have a Netgate pfSense box that I run as well. I got a little impatient when a firmware update was happening and thought the device locked up and rebooted and ended up having to push the default firmware back. I got help over email, and they were great. They gave me a copy of the factory firmware and I was able to recover the unit.

Positive

We've previously used Meraki. We use their gateways as well. We also used to use some Unify gateways but it was too limited. 

pfSense is great - and more flexible. It's better than both. It just lacks a centralized management portal. 

Initially getting into it, it took took a second or two just to get our team trained up on it. Since it's so flexible, there are some initial configuration assumptions that aren't made. You can do with the device as you wish. There's a lot of network equipment out there that has done a little bit too much hand-holding in terms of the initial configuration, however, those are also devices that are much less configurable. Going in, you want to understand networking a little bit more to make some of those decisions when you're setting up a pfSense box. 

How long it takes to implement depends on what you call fully deploy. We're still in the process of doing that. We have, especially on the Unify or Ubiquiti side, every time we have a client where one of those devices fails, we're putting in a pfSense box at this point. We deployed it on our own corporate network rather quickly. I had it done in a couple of hours, basically. 

There is some maintenance needed. The firmware updates, and we want to make sure that we're watching for when the new firmware is released, especially if it's being released to cover some known vulnerabilities.

We did the implementation all by ourselves in-house.

We are buying the Netgear hardware and we get the license along with it. The total cost of ownership is is extremely low when you compare it to a lot of the other devices or other gateway appliances that are available on the market.

The pricing is great - for the hardware, at least, which is generally what we're paying for. I was very aware of and paid attention to all the noise that went down when they changed their licensing, especially for the community edition. They created a new product called the Plus version of the license. 

For what they charge for it, which is maybe $100 a year, it's still good. If you wanted to build your own router, pfSense is more than worth $100 a year to have all that flexibility and maybe your own piece of custom hardware that you want to run it on. It's definitely a value-driven product.

We're using the Plus version since we buy the Netgate hardware. That comes with pfSense, and we're typically not building our own gateways.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

My advice to new users would be to practice with the product when you get an appliance. It's always easier to start learning with an appliance directly from Netgate. Just set it up and mess around with it maybe on a network that is a test network of some kind. Something that's not in production. It's not a hard device to understand if you understand networking at all. 

We deploy the pfSense firewall to our customers' networks.

The solution provides customers with reliability and additional security.

The interface is very good. The configuration options are excellent. All of its capabilities are quite useful. It's more capable than what we need it for. I like having the ability to have additional capabilities compared to others.

pfSense's flexibility is great. I would rate it pretty high based on that.

We immediately witnessed the benefits of pfSense.

The IPS intrusion protection system helps prevent data loss. It works really well. It's a little bit manual process, however, it works really well overall.

pfSense provides high availability to help minimize downtime. They all have built-in high availability, which fails over to another box.

The solution provides visibility that enables users to make data-driven decisions. That said, that's a capability that we really don't need due to how small our customers are.

The visibility in pfSense helps to optimize performance. Just being able to see network traffic and the load on the firewall on the box, or the response times from packets going back and forth is helpful. There is a lot of visibility into network performance.

pfSense does not provide a single pane of glass type of management. That's one of the biggest downfalls. We take care of more than 60 customers, so it would be nice to have the ability to have all of the pfSense boxes that we deploy under one pane of glass so we can manage them centrally. 

I've used the solution for two years. 

I've had no issues with stability; I'd rate it ten out of ten. 

While we do not scale the solution, I can see it being very scalable. 

Technical support is of excellent quality, and they have fast response times. 

Positive

We've never used any alternative to pfSense.

We're buying the machines from Netgate. It's very easy to deploy. I'd rate the ease of implementation as eight out of ten. Even if someone didn't have much experience with pfSense, it would be pretty easy.

It's low maintenance; we may only need to worry about an occasional firmware update. 

I did not use an integrator or consultant during the implementation. I handled the process myself. 

The total cost of ownership is very good. It's low maintenance. Once you get it up and running, you really don't have to touch it. It's very favorable to have the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities.

The pricing is excellent. 

We're an end-user.

We use the pfSense Plus version. 

I'd rate pfSense nine out of ten.

New users should be aware that it is more complex than just a consumer-grade product. Users need to be prepared for a lot of features that they might not understand or know how to implement at first. Check your resources in preparation.

I use the solution in my home. It's my firewall, DNS server, DHCP server, intrusion detection server, and reverse proxy server.

The solution's web interface is very feature-rich and well-supported. There's a large community of users out there you can get to. There are many things that I'm not using at the time. It's got great support for VPNs. One of the ways that I'm using it is for VPN support as well. Netgate pfSense is a great product.

Netgate pfSense is an extremely flexible solution.

You'll see the benefits of Netgate pfSense immediately after you deploy it. The more features you use, the more benefits you get from it. I'm using the tool for VLAN support. That was something I implemented first, and it completely changed the way I was using my network. That was a real game-changer because it provided greatly enhanced security for my network and reduced the complexity of my network.

The firewall, the intrusion detection service, the VPN support, and VLAN support keep me from getting hacked and possibly having problems with ransomware and potential data loss.

pfSense Plus provides features that help us minimize downtime. You can create copies of different environments that you set up. If you want to try a setting but want to be protected from loss and downtime, you can create a copy of your current working environment.

You should try adding the new change to your pfSense configuration. If that doesn't work, you can easily go back to the working configuration with just a simple change from within the web interface. It also does automatic backups of its configuration.

The visibility of pfSense Plus helps us optimize performance. You can overcome latency issues through traffic shaping. I previously had buffer bloat issues, which I don't have currently.

If you have a slower connection, you can use traffic shaping limiters and priority queues to ensure that your VoIP traffic, internet TV traffic, or streaming traffic has enough guaranteed bandwidth. In my case, my broadband connection is wide enough, and I do not have to really use those features.

The cost of ownership of Netgate pfSense with the hardware cost was about $ 350.

It would be nice for the code optimization to run on even slower processes. It's optimized quite a bit, but there's always room for improvement.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for two years.

We haven’t faced any issues with the solution’s stability.

From my point of view, the solution's initial setup is pretty easy. Many YouTube videos are out there to help you get it up and running. There's a lot to try, a lot of things to do, and a lot of technology to play with, but I'm afraid I'm a bit of a tinkerer. To do what I initially wanted, I probably spent a day.

I would like to see the solution's price reduced.

There is some complexity to adding features to pfSense and configuring them. I would not say it's extremely complex, but it's got a high degree of complexity.

The website is all you need to configure Netgate pfSense. If you choose to, you can use its SSH terminal interface, but that's not something that most users would do. I would think they would stick with its fully developed, mature web interface.

The solution by itself does not need any maintenance. However, if you use the incursion detection plugins, you need to make sure that those are tuned properly. That involves periodic checks and possible adjustments. New users should be prepared to learn, read the manual, and utilize YouTube resources. It'll be worth it.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

I use pfSense as my primary home router and edge gateway. My professional background is primarily in security engineering, though I focus more on pre-sales technical engineering. Due to my extensive experience in direct and security information management over the past decade, I leverage pfSense's capabilities to generate much of the data in my SIM system. This data is essential for laboratory purposes, testing, rule development, and use case creation. As a result, pfSense is a crucial component in securing both my home network and laboratory environment.

I appreciate pfSense's flexibility because I previously encountered issues with hardware reliability. While I'll eventually order dedicated pfSense hardware, I experienced consistent problems with SSD corruption. Frustrated with this, I considered switching to OpenSense. However, I discovered its potential after running pfSense in a virtual environment. The ability to easily create snapshots and recover from mistakes is invaluable. Ultimately, I've decided to continue using pfSense virtually due to its flexibility and convenience.

The ease of adding features and configuring them in pfSense depends on a user's familiarity with FreeBSD and network analytics. While I have extensive experience building firewalls from raw FreeBSD, pfSense offers a user-friendly interface that accelerates setup for newcomers. Its underlying FreeBSD foundation allows advanced users to access and configure low-level features. I appreciate pfSense's intuitive GUI and the secure default configuration provided during initial installation.

After the initial setup process, I immediately recognized the value of pfSense. The straightforward configuration questions provided a solid foundation, making the benefits apparent. While every implementation requires tailored adjustments, pfSense offers a versatile platform to explore various use cases. My primary focus was extracting in-depth information beyond standard firewall logs, such as detailed Suricata events and DNS server activity. As I delved deeper, I discovered pre-built packages that simplified data export to tools like Prometheus and InfluxDB, often meeting most of my requirements without extensive customization.

The advanced pfSense firewall rules offer significant advantages, such as implementing threat intelligence to block malicious actors from accessing our network. Configuring pfSense for radius or two-factor authentication can enhance security by preventing unauthorized access to our environment. These features are among the reasons I appreciate pfSense.

pfSense offers a centralized view of network data, but its built-in dashboards are sufficient for many users. As a fan of Grafana, I prefer a consolidated approach and could utilize pfSense data through either Prometheus or InfluxDB. However, extracting all data for central aggregation, as I'm accustomed to in threat management, aligns more with my preferred workflow. Nevertheless, the ability to customize dashboards within pfSense to monitor firewalls, DNS, and other critical services is valuable and meets the needs of many users, including those focused on point-of-service operations.

pfSense offers several features designed to minimize downtime, including failover, synchronization between routers, and ZFS snapshotting. While these tools effectively reduce downtime, I believe virtualization snapshotting and backups provide the best solution for my needs. Ideally, I would have multiple pfSense routers with a redundant setup, but budget constraints currently limit me to virtualization. Ultimately, the best approach depends on individual requirements and resources.

pfSense provides visibility that enables me to make data-driven decisions.

pfSense's visibility into system performance enables optimization at various levels. The initial user interface provides valuable information about RAM usage, active services, and general health. In contrast, more advanced users can access in-depth kernel-level data for granular insights into system behavior. By offering tools for novice and experienced users, pfSense empowers practical understanding and management of system resource allocation.

I appreciate pfSense's foundation on FreeBSD, which enables me to leverage additional FreeBSD packages for expanded functionality. WireGuard, a core feature I constantly rely on, facilitates my home and mobile devices' constant connection to my home network, allowing complete traffic monitoring and filtering. I value Pia ad-block's effectiveness in network traffic filtering, ad blocking, and malware prevention. Unbound's flexible DNS server complements the robust firewall, which is user-friendly and flexible for rule creation.

I've encountered persistent issues with the solid-state drives built into pfSense hardware devices. The devices consistently malfunctioned despite repeated attempts to resolve the problem, including complete reinstallation. Power outages significantly contributed to the issue, as frequent system corruption occurred following these events. Even after reformatting, bad sectors persisted on several drives across at least three purchased devices. Unfortunately, this has rendered some units utterly unusable due to recurring disk corruption.

While there seems to be support for virtual environments, I believe some modules specifically support VirtualBox. Unfortunately, I've had to customize my own setup again. To accommodate users on platforms like Proxmox, I need to install the QEMU Guest package to provide native support for such environments, similar to other open-source virtualization solutions like KVM. Out-of-the-box QEMU Guest support would be beneficial. I appreciate the inclusion of Suricata, Snort, WireGuard, and Telegraph, which work well behind the scenes. The Prometheus node exporter is also present. Having used pfSense for a decade, I continually discover new functionalities. Surprisingly, some features I needed were already available, but better discovery mechanisms within the product could help users explore them. I would like to see out-of-the-box QEMU support.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years.

Stability has been a concern for me. Hardware-wise, performance has been inconsistent. Software stability has also been an issue, particularly during significant upgrades. I've encountered various problems that required troubleshooting. However, I've noticed a substantial improvement in stability and ease of use for upgrades and patching over the past year or two. While there have been occasional setbacks, such as with the new packet exporter feature, pfSense has become much more reliable overall.

The scalability is good because I started with a simple network, WAN, and LAN setup and expanded it to multiple LANs, VPNs, and internal networks.

Technical support has been good, especially for hardware issues. Whenever my image was corrupted, I could always count on them to send a new NISO image within a few days without questions. However, I don't need much support for configurations or other technical aspects as I prefer to experiment and learn by trial and error in my lab environment. That's the fun part for me.

Positive

I was going to move to OpenShift, but I never made the jump. Eventually, I think my saving grace was my ability to virtualize pfSense. Once I do that, I can bounce back from misconfigurations or something wrong. I have had no problems with pfSense since I got off the harness.

A skilled networking engineer unfamiliar with pfSense can easily configure a firewall. Setting up a NAT barrier between internal and external networks is straightforward; this functionality is included by default. VLAN configuration and other initial setup questions are addressed during the product's initial setup process, the specifics of which depend on the intended use case.

The average time to set up one pfSense box is 15 to 20 minutes.

One person is enough to deploy pfSense. 

I prefer the software licensing model. In contrast, hardware costs can be substantial; I once paid around $400 for a piece of equipment, perhaps two or three years ago. I believe they've made improvements since then, although I can't recall the exact model number, as I moved from the smaller SG 1100 to the SG 2100 to accommodate more advanced features requiring additional RAM. Unfortunately, I encountered another hardware failure with the latter.

The cost of ownership is low, especially when purchasing the pfSense Plus and virtualizing it.

I would rate Netgate pfSense eight out of ten.

I use the paid version of pfSense because I constantly was replacing faulty hardware. The previous physical appliances struggled to handle the network load, so I switched to a virtualized solution.

pfSense can be essentially set and forgotten in basic configurations, but utilizing advanced features like Suricata IDS and TF blocking necessitates regular maintenance to ensure rule updates and system synchronization. Consistent care and attention are required for optimal performance in these scenarios.

I recommend that new users keep things simple with pfSense. While I enjoy pushing my products to their limits, simplicity contributes to a more stable system overall.

It's the main firewall for my household. It's also what I'm using to gain access to my employer's website and VPN. It acts as a gateway to my employers. My wife uses the device as a VPN to do her job as well.

I wanted something that is robust and makes it easy to diagnose if anything goes wrong. I'm also used to the system. I've used it since 2006 or 2007. So it was something that was really familiar with. I used to use the free solution. Last year, I decided to jump into the actual hardware devices that these guys sell. I didn't have time anymore to deal with aftermarket hardware. It saves me some time to have their devices.

The main benefit is peace of mind and no downtime or minimal downtime as compared to other solutions that I've used before.

Its ability to put some plug-ins into the system is helpful. There are a couple of packages that I'm using. Since I'm using it mainly as a firewall and sometimes as a VPN endpoint, it's really great.

The flexibility is good. The fact that you can add packages makes the device quite flexible. Also, it's quite overpowered for my needs right now, so that's a good thing. 

Price-wise, the quality to price is pretty much up there, especially when you consider that you don't have to tinker with anything. With hardware, you don't know where you know, how long it's going to last or anything like that. However, with pfSense, you have guaranteed support with NetGate, and this is great.

It's quite easy to configure. It's very intuitive. Maybe that's because I know the interface. There's also tons of of information available online. They have a very good user manual for the software as well. It's very detailed, and it's it's easy to work with. 

There's a forum where you can ask questions, and people are very friendly. Within a couple of hours, sometimes days, somebody has had the issue that you're having before. So, forum responses are quite quick.

It's really easy to work with. There's peace of mind and no downtime.

In terms of preventing data loss, any solution is only as good as its weakest point. And since this is at the very edge of my network, of the outside network, I feel I'm pretty prepared and protected from data breaches. That said, at the end of the day, I'm not opening myself up to many things in the outside world. It's blocking pretty well, and I don't feel threatened. If there's data loss, it's going to be from my end users, not from the device itself.

It provides us with a single pane of glass management for my household. There's only one device that I use.

The main advantage to me right now is that I'm using their reboot environment. It's really easy for me to update, and if some things don't go well, I can go to the previous version and be back up in no time. 

pfSense is just plug-and-play. Performance-wise, once you install the system, it works even when there's been a couple of software updates. It's probably overpowered for what I need. Performance is very good.

If I had to change internal providers, I might have some difficult times. For example, going from cable to ADSL. Right now, it suits my needs, and as long as they keep it updated, I'm pretty good with that.

I've used the solution since December 2023.

The stability is great.

I haven't had to scale the solution.

I haven't had to contact technical support. 

I have used other solutions, such as Untangle, D-Link, and Linksys. There were always a lot of limitations if you didn't adopt the commercial licenses, and those would be expensive. pfSense is reliable, especially with the NetGate hardware. It's also predictable. There's never a big software change. pfSense has been very stable since it's based on FreeBSD. However, it is on a lesser-known OS.

I use a physical device. For implementation, you have to use a console interface through a serial port and then a TTY from your own computer. For some people, maybe it's a bit more difficult. For me, it was really straightforward. It's as easy as setting up a switch. 

I loaded it up the first time and the only thing I had to do was modify my previous config, change the interface names, and just throw it back in there. It takes less than an hour.

There's only maintenance if there's an update. It might be down for a few minutes during that time. It takes maybe five to 10 minutes. Even if something goes wrong, it's pretty easy. You just reimage it and reload the safe configuration. It's much easier than other solutions, like Untangle. 

I handled the implementation myself. I did not need the help of third parties. 

The pricing is reasonable. Before I got the 6000, I was on my own devices. They developed a pricing schedule last year. At first, I was worried, however, it's maybe $130 a year and it's very reasonable compared to other solutions. With the 6000, the price is included within the device itself. 

Compared to other solutions, the total cost of ownership is very good. It's not that it is so much cheaper, it's that it fulfils the needs of more people. With the level of support provided, the price is very reasonable. 

I'd advise new users to take the time to read about the device and the software beforehand. Otherwise, you're going to waste a lot of time trying things that you think are going to work. Since it's not necessarily the same thing as, let's say, Untangle, you have to familiarize yourself with the interface and with the system before actually diving in deep.

I would rate the product ten out of ten.

The benefits I have seen in my organization from the use of Netgate pfSense rewards around the fact of how quickly we can implement changes that are needed with the tool are definitely one of the main things. Overall, we have experienced less downtime with the tool. In my organization, we have had downtime with Cisco. Overall, we have noticed some performance increases as well with the use of Netgate pfSense.

The solution's most valuable feature is that I really like the third-party add-ons, as they give the firewall a ton of flexibility and extra functionalities.

My organization plans to solve costs-related problems by using Netgate pfSense. We were using Cisco's firewall products, and the license and hardware costs were just too high. With Netgate pfSense, I think we can get a full firewall tool with support and no need for licensing for under 5,000 USD, saving a ton of money.

There were no specific security issues or challenges I was trying to address using Netgate pfSense.

In terms of the overall flexibility offered by the product, I would say that it is very easy to implement, make changes, and adapt to different challenges that we may have with it. It offers a lot of different options, including VPN options for site-to-site client VPNs. Overall, it is a great tool. It is a highly adaptable solution that is, most importantly, very easy to implement.

It is extremely easy to add features to Netgate pfSense and configure them. If you are talking about third-party stuff, it is something that is within the firewall itself. You can go into the Package Manager and install it.

From a configuration point of view, it is extremely easy to use the tool. With third-party stuff, it can be a pain, but overall, it is extremely easy to manage Netgate pfSense since it is mainly a GUI-driven tool. It is super easy to configure overall.

If I assess the solution for helping our organization prevent data loss, I think it has been great for us. Everything has room for improvement, but it has been great right now.

Netgate pfSense provides our organization with a single pane of glass management. The tool offers great flexibility and is awesome. In our organization, we haven't had any issues with it. It just makes changes that need to be done extremely quickly and efficiently by the end of the day.

I have worked with Netgate pfSense Plus. I buy the hardware from Netgate, and it comes with pfSense Plus.

Netgate pfSense Plus provides 100 percent features that help minimize downtime. In extreme situations, implementing connections that were super helpful in the past and just the ease of deployment, the product offers is helpful since even if something happens to the firewall itself, I can have a virtualized firewall doing the same thing within less than an hour. It can help with that downtime. I know that Netgate pfSense is extremely reliable and a great tool.

Netgate pfSense provides 100 percent visibility, enabling my organization to make data-driven decisions. Netgate pfSense is very much configurable. It gives you 100 percent of everything you need to make decisions. It gives you details of all kinds of different graphs, traffic, and firewall rules, along with the things that you definitely need in the form of the data that you need to be able to just make quick data-driven decisions.

Netgate pfSense visibility helps me optimize performance. The data is just so easily accessible that you can make decisions very quickly. It also helps improve performance. In our organization, we have noticed a very noticeable performance increase since we shifted from the old firewall from Cisco to Netgate pfSense.

If I were to assess the total cost of ownership of Netgate pfSense, I would say it is extremely low and affordable. I think it is a really very simple and extremely budget-friendly tool.

In our organization, we have had such a good experience with Netgate pfSense over the last four years. In terms of improvements, I have not really thought much, to be quite honest. Maybe faster releases for the software or the firewall itself can be areas where improvements are possible. The tool is just a little bit slow to release patches, so it is probably one of the things where the tool can improve. In general, the tool is not bad at all at the end of the day.

Speaking about whether any enhancements are required in the tool, I would say that the tool has everything that we need for our usage. We have an extremely complex environment, the most complex of which is how we use Netgate's BGP to connect to our ISP. Netgate pfSense is extremely feature-rich for our specific use scenarios, and we have not encountered any shortcomings in the solution.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for around four years. The box itself says Netgate pfSense XG-1540. I don't remember the software version we are using right now, but all I know is that I keep it up to date. In my organization, it will be the latest version of the product.

I have not faced any issues with the stability of the product. I have one firewall in a very bad physical environment. It was very dusty, but it has been 100 percent reliable.

It is an extremely scalable solution.

In our school, we have close to 1,800 students and 210 teaching staff overall. With administrative staff, I think there are about 50 people.

I have the tool in different locations and on different campuses.

If I can call someone from the product's technical support team, l can have a technical person on the phone with me in less than five minutes. If you have any questions for them, they will come and try to give you the answer as quickly as they can, and if they don't have a reply, they will reply to you later via email. For the amount that it costs per year, the level of service that you get is unbeatable, honestly. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase was extremely straightforward.

When we deployed the product for the first time, we went through its documentation and how to do things. Otherwise, the strategy is usually based on the fact that we have four campuses, and they run in a similar manner. At least for us, we have a master configuration sort of thing, which we can kind of load into Netgate pfSense and make the small changes that we need, like VLAN changes and small things that apply to the location that the device will be deployed to, and it takes less than probably an hour or two to kind of have a firewall deployed working with the bare minimum, which is extremely fast compared to what it takes with Cisco.

In terms of maintenance, it has been pretty much like we do the setup and then forget it. The firmware updates, or physical maintenance, like cleaning the device, are there. From a greater overview, it is just kind of a set-it-up-and-forget kind of solution for us.

The product's deployment was done in-house, and it involved just me. The enterprise-level support from Netgate helped my organization a lot, especially during the first two deployments, but after that, it was easy.

Personally, I do not have any metrics or data points associated with the ROI that I can share with anyone. My CFO is the person who has information related to ROI.

In our organization, the whole point of moving to Netgate pfSense was that we wanted something that wasn't hard to use or where the licensing wasn't so expensive. We looked at different open-source options, but I can't remember their names. We also looked at UniFi's firewall, but Netgate pfSense came on top for us, considering the support provided and the fact that Netgate's team is the main set of people that keep up with pfSense's open-source project. With Netgate, we work directly with people who use Netgate pfSense, and it is great. We did look at other options, one of which was UniFi, but I cannot remember the name of the other alternative to Netgate pfSense. I think it is called OPNsense.

Suppose I compare the other tools I evaluated with Netgate pfSense, and I feel that the pros of pfSense revolve around the area associated with the product's cost in terms of hardware requirements and licensing. There are no existing costs for the licensing or the hardware. You can deal with the licensing part yourself and get it at a cheap rate from elsewhere or buy it from Netgate's boxes directly from the solution company. Another pro would be the ease of management the tool offers since it is possible to have everything that you need in the GUI, which is a little bit controversial because a lot of people like CLI, but sometimes you need to get something quickly without having to have hundreds of different things.

I haven't come across any cons in the product since most of our company's scenarios are simple and small since we are just a school compared to what other big companies have. Everything that Cisco's firewall was doing for us, Netgate pfSense's firewall does for us for a fraction of the cost and even offers a better performance. I would not know the tool's cons since I do not have anything on my mind right now.

I do not use Negate pfSense Plus on Amazon EC2 VMs. In our organization, we are using Negate pfSense Plus on Netgate's hardware. We use Netgate pfSense XG-1540.

To others who plan to use the solution, I would say that the support offered by the product is 100 percent worth it. The enterprise support is also extremely worth it. In a general sense, if people don't know much about implementation, they just need to read the documentation because many things, like the GUI part, could throw some people off. If you come from a CLI-based tool, the GUI aspect can throw you off, and I know it since it threw me off a little bit initially, but we were able to get through the implementation phase very thoroughly as the tool offers great documentation. By thoroughly going through the documentation, you will have a fairly easy time configuring the tool very methodologically. I really don't think I would recommend anything else apart from the fact that others need to read the documentation and take their time.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

It's a straight-up front edge router used in various scenarios for front-ending multiple websites and multiple web applications for various marketing scenarios which require certain back-end firewalling that you would need to utilize. We found that it works much better than others. It's not like the Ciscos, which, at the time, were incredibly expensive and difficult to work with unless you had a CCNA who was programming it for you.

I was looking for routers that were capable of doing multiple firewalling, which it does. We wanted it for setting up demilitarized zones and setting up some failover for WAN for the internet. We looked at that, and we played around a little bit with Untangle. pfSense was just far easier to get configured and working, and there were no hidden costs or fees involved, which made it very nice to use.

They have a whole section of package management that you can add stuff to. We use pfSense to do a little bit more than what we would or what I would normally do today in a medium to large enterprise.

The flexibility of pfSense is fantastic. You can use it in a number of situations. I have it running on my home Netgate. At the same time, I can just put it on a slightly larger machine and run a massive, highly trafficked web environment. It will run anywhere.

It's easy to add features to pfSense and configure them assuming about web networking and routing and traffic through an edge router scenario. For a home user, it's probably a lot more than they would get through, but they wouldn't need to since you can just install it, and it just works right out of the box. Just about everything is easy. It's extremely well documented, and the amount of help that's available is fantastic.

I saw the benefits of pfSense immediately. When you need your router to do something more than, for example, a store-bought router for home, you immediately see it since now I can do things. I can set up multiple LANs. I can create a firewall between the LANs. I can open up a full demilitarized zone or just port forward into specific LANs and have the LANs porting between themselves in various ways. You don't get that stuff in your normal consumer-grade solution. You have to spend a lot of money to get a serious data center router - and on top of that, you need to get somebody to program that from the command line, which is very expensive. In contrast, pfSense has a graphical user interface, which makes it all very straightforward and easy to use to set up some pretty sophisticated routing scenarios.

I don't use pfSense to prevent data loss as I have backups, both on-site and off-site backups. It's effective for preventing data breaches.

pfSense gives users a single pane of glass as a type of management. There is everything in one instance. It has a graphical user interface. It'll come up with a dashboard that you can customize to put whatever you need to see up on there. I can customize the dashboard to show me the most important things to me. It's incredibly intuitive.

Managing multiple devices is easy enough. You just log in remotely to the device, and it's all connected through the IP. It's really quite simple.

There are two versions of pfSense: the community edition, which is free, and the plus version, which is paid. I'm using the paid one presently.

The solution minimizes downtime. Once it's configured, it works. I don't have to worry about it. I fully know it backwards and forwards since I've been using it for 15 years now and it pretty much just works. I have certain instances of pfSense that haven't even been rebooted in years since it's up and running and it keeps running, and it runs well. I rarely need to touch certain my installs after they've been set and configured.

The solution provides visibility that enables data-driven decisions. It has logging. It has intrusion detection systems, which will give you a whole lot of data that you can make decisions on. For example: Who do I need to block? Is somebody trying to attack me? It'll allow me to collect all that information to make critical decisions regarding exposing certain resources to the internet.

pfSense helps optimize performance in combination with the hardware that it's running on. That will determine what kind of performance you're going to be getting out of the box. It's a very lightweight software package. Depending on the hardware, you can hit it with lots of traffic, and it won't even hiccup.

I would like to see more active updates coming out of the developers. I like the FreeBSD. That said, the developers in FreeBSD are less productive than what you see out of the Linux community, where there are millions and millions of developers. Being FreeBSD-bound, it seems they're short of developers who have to specialize in that operating system.

I've used the solution since 2009.

The solution never crashes and never lags. It works. You fire it up, and it will work for the next 50 years. As long as the hardware is working, pfSense will just go on and do its thing.

Scalability all comes down to hardware. When you put pfSense on more robust hardware, it performs pretty well. 

For the paid version, if I have an issue, I need to open a ticket. Before I had my business going, I used the community, and it worked it worked just as well. I haven't had a need to call support. However, I pay for pfSense Plus support in case something happens that's over my head that I need to speak to an expert about.

I contacted them when I had a question about a Snort setup, which is for intrusion detection and prevention. It turns out you have to contact their specialist, and that Snort requires you to pay extra for that help. It's a third-party plugin for pfSense. However, in relation to pfSense, issues, I have not needed help. 

I've used Untangle and Cisco routers, and I've tried OPNsense.

I prefer pfSense. I'm comfortable with it. It's rock solid. I've never had an issue with it. I tell it to do something, and it does exactly what I tell it to do.

I have purchased NetGate appliances for customers. For my business, I have hardware that I've repurposed for pfSense.

The initial deployment, either way, is very easy. It would probably be easier than most commercial routers that people buy.

A simple instance where you're just using a firewall router with one LAN can take less than five minutes. You just install the software. It picks up the WAN IP and gives you a LAN IP, and it's up and working as quickly as the software will install, which is usually less than five minutes on most devices and most hardware.

I do the deployments myself. I don't see where a team would be required for this. It's just a firewall router. If you need a complicated setup, it might take one person, a couple of days of planning, and then implementation. That said, I don't see where you would need a team to do that unless you're installing a bunch of other network hardware at the same time, multiple switches, or a ten-gig, one-gig type of scenario. However, that's not a pfSense issue.

In terms of maintenance, generally, there is none. It will update itself. I see very few critical security updates. Most of them are our feature updates. I have certain installs that have been running without rebooting for five years, and it just installed them. Mostly, I'm leaving it alone.

The pricing is reasonable for what it is. I usually put it on my own hardware. The licensing for me is relatively inexpensive for what I'm getting out of it.

The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is fantastic. You can use the community edition and get expertise from the manufacturer. It's quite reasonable. It's quite a good setup.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'd advise potential new users to install it, plug it in, get to know it, log into it, and you'll start to see how easy and robust it is. The more you use it, the more you learn, and you'll like it as much as I do.

We use pfSense as the main firewalls coming into most of the companies we support. I work for an MSP. We've used different things. Our higher-end customers even run pfSense high availability clusters, and those work like a champ.

It has made deploying firewalls a faster process due to ease of configuration.

One of the features we use the most is the OpenVPN and IPsec VPN tunneling built within it. We have places that are headquarters and multiple locations where we create tunnels. We support police departments and stuff like that. Part of our use case is one of our police departments that does their own dispatching, so they have software that they run in-house. So we set their points out where the points themselves dial back in through OpenVPN using client certificates to create that always-on tunnel. Prior to us taking that over, they were using FortiGates, and the FortiGate FortiVPN was constantly dropping, and they were constantly having to re-authenticate. They would have to put 2FA back in. Since we've put in pfSense, we have the cradlepoints in cars establish the VPN connection, and we hardly ever hear from them since there seem to be no issues.

pfSense's flexibility is great. If you don't have the money to buy the NetGate hardware, anything works with it. You can toss it on any low-end piece of hardware or virtualize it if you choose to virtualize it. It is super flexible.

It's easy to add features to pfSense or configure them, especially if you're familiar with pfSense. They have a complete repository of apps that you can choose from and different types of monitoring packages you can put on it. They're all very, very straightforward and very easy to set up. I even run a pfSense for my home firewall. I've got AT&T fiber coming into my house. I bridge the public IP through, patch the modem into my pfSense, and have no issues whatsoever. I even run multiple VLANs off of it.  I replaced a FortiGate with this setup.

The benefits are witnessed immediately after you deploy it. Immediately after you deploy it you're no longer having to read articles to figure out what flaw has been found in this version of FortOS or what flaw has been found in this version of SonicWall that's being run. You just you don't seem to have that in the pfSense platform.

pfSense provides with a customizable dashboard landing page.  You can add widgets to show you any piece of information you want to see. I can add in a widget where, from the dashboard, it'll show me, what OpenVPN clients I have connected. It'll show me traffic graphs from LAN, optional ports, uptime, what version of BSD I'm on, what version of pfSense I'm on, whether there's an update available for PFSense, IP information, et cetera. It gives me all this within the main loading dashboard screen.

To manage multiple devices, you would have to subscribe to a third-party service to have the ability to do that.

This is truly set it and forget it. We didn't quite run into that as much with FortiGate. Even with the third-party add-ons, we don't seem to run into issues with the pfSense product where we have to be so hands-on.

There are two versions of pfSense, the community edition, which is free, and the paid version, Plus. We run both. We're getting more away from the community edition since we're starting to just purchase NetGate appliances. We're buying it strictly through NetGate. At this point, we're even starting to add on the tech support, which is top-notch.

pfSense can help to minimize downtime. You can set them up in a high-availability cluster, and that pretty much minimizes all downtime. Your secondary appliance picks up if your primary appliance goes down. It makes it really easy to apply updates or reboot the one firewall. It switches over so seamlessly. Your users never know the difference. When the primary firewall comes back up, it'll take over the primary function again, and then you can reboot your secondary firewall.

The visibility in pfSense enables us to make data-driven decisions. You can use traffic graphs and the historical data of those traffic graphs, especially if you're monitoring your WAN connection, to know whether you're oversaturating your line and whether you need to update your bandwidth coming into your building or not. That way, if you're seeing slowdowns on the internet, you can go back to your traffic graphs and figure out if you are seeing the slowdown from your provider or just oversaturating the line. If that's the case, I just need to call and order some more bandwidth.

As far as optimizing the performance goes, I like the fact that you can take interfaces within pfSense and put bandwidth limits on them. If I have a guest network, I can put a throttle limit on it to make sure that somebody doesn't hook to my guest and eat up so much bandwidth that my primary network can't function.

They're very affordable for what they offer. However, they should become more MSP-centric. They could design a centralized dashboard that I, as an MSP provider, can create sites and load my pfSense in there. That way, I can schedule updates to run after hours and things along those lines. They need to design for MSPs that are using their products and make centralized management easier.

I've been using pfSense for at least a decade. 

pfSense doesn't ever crash. If I had any gripe about these things, it's the fact that sometimes the update process will break the appliance. I'm not sure what causes it. I've had a few appliances where they've been running fine, and I go to apply an update, and then they just don't boot back normally. At that point, I reach out to support. They give me the reload file that I need. I reload the appliance. I dump the config back on it, and then it's good to go.

As long as you're buying an appliance that will support the bandwidth that you need to push through it, scalability is fine.We've got some of them running 10 to 12 VLANs. We've got one particular one that has no less than five different OpenVPN setups depending upon the department you're in.

Their paid support is top-notch.

With the community edition, and this probably is one of my gripes to pfSense, and this is more on the NetGate side, is that they don't make their images readily available to you. So you have to open a support ticket. You have to give them the hardware ID. You have to give them the serial number of the appliance, and then they will send you the file that you need to reload the operating system. Even so, we're talking about less than an hour of waiting time, and somebody will respond to the ticket and give you a link where you can download the software to reload it.

Positive

We've used SonicWall. We've used FortiGate. We always seem to go back to the Netgate and the PS pfSense just due to the fact being open source, they seem to have fewer security flaws in them than running something that is a closed proprietary system. With FortiGate, you constantly need to update, since they're constantly finding flaws in the FortiOS, and we just don't seem to have that from pfSense and the NetGate supply of products.

There was more hands-on work with FortiGate. If you're doing any type of web filtering, they would come out with an update where a website that did work would start getting miscategorized. And then all of a sudden, it would stop working. And you would have to go in and make a white list and an exception for it.

We buy the appliances and then install the appliances on our customer sites.

The initial deployment is easy. How long it takes depends on how simple or how complicated it is. As far as just a simple firewall goes, I can have one of them up and running in 15 to 20 minutes.

Even if you are not too knowledgeable, it would be very easy. When you first boot into it and go to the web interface, it has a wizard that walks you through setting the IP address on your LAN and configuring whether you're using DHCP or static on the LAN. That wizard that walks you right through what to do right out of the box.

Just one person is generally needed for deployment. 

After the deployment, it's pretty much set it and forget it. I will go in and I will check quarterly if an update needs to be applied, however, they don't come up with updates that often. Maybe once a quarter, once every six months, an update has to be applied to the appliance. Other than that, I am only logging into these appliances if I need to make rule changes or if I need to bring up an additional VLAN in the network.

The licensing model is good. It's probably a little expensive for the hardware that you get. However, a part of that price is the support. And their support is top-notch. Even if you're only using the community support, and you're not paying for the extra support, they probably pad the hardware prices a little bit to help offset their support people. 

I love the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of pfSense. That's one of our selling points to our customers. You can buy this, buy once, or, you can look at going to Meraki or FortiGate or something like that, but, be paying licensing fees every single year to keep that product up and running.

I'm an MSP.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

If you're going with the NetGate appliance, I'd let new users know that they are already optimized for pfSense. If it's something that you're looking to virtualize or if you're looking to use a community edition on your own hardware, my recommendation would be just to make sure that you use Intel network cards. I have never had a problem out of an Intel NIC for getting the OpenBSD underlying platform to recognize those network cards and load the proper drivers for them. That way, they show up within the pfSense software.