We primarily use the solution for firewalling, site-to-site VPNs, and VPN management.

We largely needed a good firewall solution. We wanted to find a suitable firewall for our company size and what we're doing with it.

It's open-source and everything is available to me without having to pay subscription fees.

The support with NetGate probably is the most value I've seen from it. They've been really, really helpful. The open-source nature of pfSense, paired with the amount of support we receive, has been great.

The flexibility is great. It does everything I need it to do. The amount of open apps for it is extensive. I was able to help track some networking issues using the pfSense to scan the network.

It's significantly easier than expected to configure the solution and simple to handle add-ons.

pfSense can help prevent data loss. In our environment, things are fairly strict. However, it makes it easy to manage and configure the firewall and handle inter-VLAN routing and firewalls between them.

We do have access to a single pane of glass management. It's easy to review traffic, usage between VLANs, threat monitoring, and user connectivity. I'd have to monitor items separately without this single pane which would make monitoring difficult.

We do use pfSense Plus. It provides us with the features we need to minimize downtime. The updates and everything that comes with it have been great.

The visibility provided allows us to make data-driven decisions. The modules I have access to for network monitoring and management have been very helpful.

We've been able to optimize performance. With NetGate support, I've been able to utilize traffic shaping and performance optimizers.

I'd like to see it become more of a next-gen firewall or deep packet inspection, however, I'm very happy with the way it is as of now.

I've used the solution personally for about two years. My company has been using it for about eight years now.

The stability is very good.

We have two locations. I have yet to uncover any scalability limitations.

Support is quick to respond. For the amount we pay a year, the support has paid for itself. I'm very happy with the level of support we get.

I do have experience with Meraki and NetGate devices. I've used FortiGate devices in the past. The expense and support were not near the quality of pfSense.

The initial setup was easy to set up and straightforward to configure. It did take a moment to learn where each tool set was. However, after that, it's really good. I handled the deployment myself. I was able to implement it within 16 hours.

There isn't really any maintenance; it is pretty much set and forget. I do updates every three months or so and that's it.

90% of the setup was handled in-house; I referred to NetGate support for a few items along the way.

We do pay about $600 a year for NetGate support. pfSense is free, however, NetGate, that made the appliance, charges for a support package. I'm very happy with the quality of service that I get for the price.

We would have paid another $7,000/year for subscription fees if we went anywhere else.

I'd recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it ten out of ten.

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're using our offices including the main endpoint VPN connections from the main office to our seller offices.

The ability to load third-party apps, et cetera, into the firewall is pretty useful for a commercial-grade router and file, which is very customizable.

Out of the box, it's about 90% plug-and-play. The last piece, you do need to know how you're setting the firewall up for your environment. It varies on what you're trying to do with it. It can be really easy or difficult, depending on your knowledge base for the application.

We were able to witness the benefits of the product pretty much immediately.

Once you've navigated around it, it's pretty self-explanatory as to where to go. Compared to other products out there, it's pretty easy.

We do have a sort of single pane of glass for management purposes. You do have to dig around. If we had, for example, ten pfSense routers deployed, it would be nice to have one console where you could see all ten devices, update them, and keep them all central. A management portal would be very nice.

I've been using the solution for seven years.

The solution is very stable. Issues are rare unless a box gets hit with a power surge or something.

I found the solution very scalable. I can load multiple VMs on it and add a second port onto it. Depending on your deployment, it is very scalable.

I've only contacted support for corrupted systems. If the unit loses power and comes back on every once in a while, the file system gets corrupted, or it won't boot the device, and you have to reimage the whole thing, in those instances, I've had to reach out to them. They are pretty quick. I can get help within an hour even with just the free version. I imagine the paid version has good support.

We used to use Ubiquiti, which was not a great solution. We also used something previously to that. Their interface was very clunky. You'd have to go through multiple different routes to get to the same thing that pfSense has on a single drop-down. pfSense has a more user-friendly setup. Plus, it has CLI integration, which is great. You can make configurations in the command prompt too, which is a lot easier.

To me, the setup is fairly easy. That said, I already knew what I was doing to set it up. If I were coming fresh out into the network and environment, I'd never switch one of the firewalls; there may be a challenge to go through and figure out what the router can do to make the deployment work. When you get the box, you plug it in. There are a lot of features that are ported in that don't come pre-installed. However, they have a complete database listed in their browser. You just go down and pick what services you need. If you don't know what is there, it may take you a while to figure out what the unit is capable of.

There is no maintenance beyond occasional updates. They don't push those out too often. However, when they do come out, you have to go through them one by one to make sure the update is successful. It would be easier if you could do everything all at once and be done with it.

How long it takes to deploy varies as each office is different. If I'm building three or four VLANs, that's going to take time. In my role, I built one base configuration that contains the VLANs IP servers that I want to use. I've extracted that as a file that I can modify and push to different boxes. So if I get 100 2100 or 4100, it doesn't matter. All I have to do is change the interface names and push it back to the box. So to me, it's pretty fast, and it already has my settings ready to go.

I handled the initial setup myself.

I use the community version. For configurations and troubleshooting, you do need to pay. I'm not sure what the pricing is for Plus.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

I'm a customer and end-user.

I use pfSense at home, and my friends and family use it in their homes. I'm also the IT solutions administrator for a council of governance organizations, and I use it for them. I use pfSense Plus at home and the community edition at some of my friends and family's houses.

I pfSense Plus at home and use the community edition at my friends and family's houses. I have used the community edition multiple times in labs, but I use pfSense Plus for all of my enterprise applications.

I started seeing the benefits when I began playing with it at home 10 years ago. It was an immediate success when I put it in enterprise locations because it was much cheaper than WatchGuard. I was familiar with pfSense, so I quickly trained my staff on it. They know how to operate everything well in pfSense.

With pfSense, you can do a failover. I have used that before, and I see it as a benefit, but there are some drawbacks. You have to use multiple external IP addresses to set it up, but it works well. However, I don't use the failover anymore because of the price. You can have two of these things on the shelf, and in the event of a failure, you can get another one up within five minutes by throwing it on there, configuring it, and plugging it in. That's my failover plan for all my main locations.

PfSense's visibility enables me to make data-driven decisions. I love the way they do geoblocking. You can see where you're improving. The logging ability is diagnostic. You can see all kinds of data. For example, when I make a new rule, Immediately know what's going through that rule. That visibility is very helpful in knowing immediately if my rules are being applied correctly.

The most valuable feature of pfSense is that it's a stateful firewall. I also like the way the rules are implemented on the firewall. It makes things much easier to see at a glance.

PfSense is the most flexible device I've ever used. It's open-source software. I've used all the big names, including Palo Alto, WatchGuard, and Sophos. In terms of dependability, this is the best of them.

It's simple to add and configure features and easier than some of the big competitors like WatchGuard. The front dashboard on pfSense is very customizable. You can get it at first glance. Everything you need to do is in that single box. It shows you if your LAN and interfaces are up. You can see what kind of traffic is going across each interface because they give you a traffic graph that you can do for each interface.

You can see if your gateway is up and precisely how much data passes through each interface. I like how you can get direct visibility over your IP address updates. If you're not running a static IP address, there's another cool thing on the front page where it shows when the dynamic DNS updates. The way you can customize that dashboard is cool. I haven't seen that with other firewalls, and pfSense gives you good visibility at first glance.

I don't think pfSense's web filtering solution is the best, so I don't use it for that purpose. They could add a little better web filtering solution to pfSense. They have solutions in place, like SquidGuard, but they aren't very good.

Another feature about pfSense I would improve is adding a single pane of glass management for multiple units I manage across the municipal district. I would love to manage all those devices through one single pane of glass, but that's not a deal breaker for me.

We have used pfSense for around 10 years.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for stability. I've never had a Netgate system fail on me.

The scalability of pfSense is great. It costs very little to expand to multiple systems across multiple locations. It'd be better if they had a mass edit platform where you're running multiple systems. I've heard quite a few people in the community talking about that. I heard someone in France was developing a dashboard that gives you visibility across multiple boxes, but the cost of deployment is very cheap. It's easy to put boxes out there and write rules for them.

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. Most of the tech people I have contacted seem to know exactly what they're doing. They've got, like, 10 people named Chris working support. Every Chris that I've ever spoken to has been spot on. Every once in a while, if I call after hours or something, I might get someone who isn't as adept at it, but they quickly escalate it to someone who can fix the issue.

I have used Palo Alto, WatchGuard, and Sophos, and all the major competitors, but I would compare pfSense to WatchGuard, the one I have the most experience with. In my type of environment, pfSense wins hands down over WatchGuard because it's a stateful firewall. One thing I've hated about WatchGuard is that it's not a stateful firewall. It's rules in and rules out. You end up getting thousands of rules over a four or five-year period. PfSense enables you to put notes on your rules.

If you have a question about a rule, you can read the note you made when you made that rule. Having the ability to document your rules in the dashboard has been a game-changer for me. After you have used a stateful firewall, it's hard to go back because it's much harder to make rules on both sides.

Deploying pfSense is as easy as any other system. It helps that pfSense has a massive user community and some great YouTubers, so you can go to YouTube University and become a professional with pfSense quickly. You can learn to do some complicated edits and set up complex VPNs. It takes only 20 minutes from start to finish. For maintenance, you only need to update it when the updates come out and change the configuration of your rules as needed.

PfSense offers huge savings. The price is the lowest in the business. The only thing you can use in place of pfSense is a fork like OPNsense. I'm more familiar with pfSense, so I never got on the OPNsense bandwagon.

I rate Netgate pfSense 10 out of 10.

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.

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.

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.

We use pfSense as the primary firewall for our data center.

We have a high availability setup, so we have had no downtime. PfSense gives us metrics about how the firewalls perform in terms of CPU, memory, etc., but I don't think it tells us how to address it. If we have an issue, we can always open a support ticket.

I find pfSense easy to use and configure. We have a high-availability pair, so if one has issues, it will failover to the other automatically. Overall, it's been pretty easy to build VPN tunnels and functions like that.

I don't think pfSense is as good about monitoring as it could be. There are logs, but they're kind of hard to get to. You need to send it to a log monitoring system. It's good about monitoring and learning this. You'll get an alert if there's an issue with the firewall itself, but it's not detecting security attacks.

PfSense has the bare necessities essentially, but it isn't an advanced firewall that protects against layer 7 attacks or DDoS. It's not on the same level as Palo Alto, for instance. You can add some higher-level security features, but it doesn't do that out of the box. Maybe there's another functoin we can add to it, but it feels like it's not catching more advanced attacks.

We've used pfSense for around five years.

The stability has been great. We've rarely had any issues that have caused a failover. When we do, the failover has made it. I don't think we've experienced any real impact from it that caused any product issues.

While we've added more IP addresses and traffic, there are some limits to its scalability. We've run into this before with graphical issues. We opened a ticket about that, and they said they found a bug that they were looking into.

I think we're going to get close to reaching a limit with the mid-to-lower-end models at some point. The scalability is good but probably not great.

Their response has been excellent. Sometimes we've opened a ticket, and we've gotten a response back right, other times it took an hour or so. They're responsive now.

In terms of the quality of their answers, they have been good to great.

At previous companies, I have worked with Cisco and Palo Alto firewalls. Palo Alto is probably a better firewall because it does more blocking. It's also quite a bit more expensive. For what you get, a Netgate pfSense solution is a highly cost-effective firewall.

It was in place when I joined the company, so I wasn't involved in the deployment. It requires some maintenance, like adding new firewall rules or VPN connections. We also upgrade it once or twice a year.

Including the support costs and the hardware, I think pfSense is reasonably priced. It's very affordable. The total cost of ownership is favorable. We've had a hardware device that lasted over five years, and they're still doing well. We're able to buy at least software support for them.

I rate Netgate pfSense seven out of 10. If you have an enterprise environment, I recommend having two for high availability. Make sure you purchase and keep up with the software support in case there are any issues. Those are the two biggest things that helped us out.

I use it for my firewall at home and when virtualizing labs to do routing between different network segments. I use it in the business that I am currently with at our main office and our other site. I worked at an MSP before that, and it was the firewall that we recommended to clients who wanted to go beyond what you'd buy at Best Buy, like the random Linksys or Netgear. I haven't touched the enterprise level, like the expensive ones where you might have 20 different Netgate segments with failover.

We deploy it either on bare metal or virtualized on our own virtualization platform. We have not deployed it on any cloud. The primary cloud services we use are software as a service, so our firewall doesn't apply to that. If we ran our own set of servers in the cloud somewhere, we'd probably consider pfSense for routing between them, but we don't have that use case.

When I started using it back in the day, someone told me that there's this firewall you can install on an old PC to get all these features that are normally only available on expensive enterprise firewalls.

I realized the benefits immediately. When I installed it, I had access to features like multi-WAN, which is more common now. You can get small home office routers with multi-WAN these days, but when I started a decade ago, it cost thousands of dollars and required enterprise equipment. It was mind-blowing that I installed it and could hook up two Internet connections for no extra money.

It doesn't directly prevent data loss because pfSense doesn't have a DLP function, but the security aspects, like the pfBlocker, ClamAV plugin, and proxy, are all great. The security components help prevent data loss by securing the network. As far as I know, pfSense doesn't have a data loss prevention function that scans for somebody trying to exfiltrate data.

The failover or load-balancing WAN helps reduce downtime. It also supports high availability between two firewalls, although I've never set that up. Those would minimize downtime of the firewall individually and the company as a whole.

We don't use it that way, but it has extensive logging. If you were to dump all those logs into something like Graylog, Elasticsearch, etc., you could analyze and decide based on that data. We don't use it like that, but I know that with the extensive logging that it has, it could be used that way.

PfSense has an excellent ability to optimize performance, especially with the plugins. It helps me determine where my bandwidth is going and get reports on latency, jitter, etc. I use all of these features regularly. If the internet is slow, I can go see who's hogging it by downloading giant files, or I can identify where there's a lot of latency on a particular gateway.

I like that there's a community edition that I can install on my own virtual machines or hardware. I can test things without messing with them in production, which is incredibly useful. If you have a Juniper or Cisco, you can typically only afford one.

You're forced to make changes in production and hope they don't break anything because there's no easy way to have a testing environment. The free version of pfSense offers load balancing or failover WAN, which is also helpful. Most commercial firewalls don't have that in the cheapest iteration of the hardware.

The community edition makes it easy to learn because you can try it before buying it and putting it in production. There's no equivalent if you want to buy FortiGate, WatchGuard, or any of those and fiddle with them on your hardware before putting it in production.

Many plugins for pfSense are easy to install off the store, and they work. The basic function that you want to do are pretty easy. However, it is more complicated than your average home office router, but that's to be expected. The fact that it is an open-source project that's trying to be all things to all people does mean that sometimes things can get a little bit complex, sometimes unnecessarily. For example, the IPSec VPN setup has five hundred options, probably more than anyone needs, but it works. Their documentation is excellent. In instances where you might not figure it out on your own or the interface might not be super clear on how to do something, the documentation is usually good 99 percent of the time.

I appreciate pfSense's flexibility. I can buy supported hardware from Netgate with it already on there, buy support for my own hardware, or run the community edition on my own hardware or a virtual machine and get all of the same functionality.

Snort or Suricata don't block things they should out of the box. It's always been a pain point of pfSense. If you turn on Snort or Suricata for IPS or IDS, no setting is effectively set and forget. Turning any commercial firewall to the lowest setting will provide you with a decent amount of security with almost zero false positives, but pfSense is not that way. You've got a babysit Snort and Suricata to the point where sometimes you turn it off.

I know one of their rising competitors, OPNsense, has the ETS rules. I forget who provides it, but you turn on a rule set, and they just work. They have a built-in set of rules for Snort and Suricata that you turn on and it provides a reasonable amount of security. That has always been a pain in the neck with pfSense. It's the single biggest thing that they could do to improve it. Honestly, they're losing business OPNsense for that one reason.

I have used pfSense for at least 10 years.

As long as you don't use bad hardware, it's fine. PfSense has issues with some Realtek network chips. If you use bad hardware and get bad results, it's your own fault. I usually have as much uptime as there is between patches. It's highly solid after reboot other than installing the most recent patch.

I've never used pfSense at the high-end enterprise scale, but it can scale nearly infinitely as far as I can tell. There's a higher-level pfSense that's carrier grade that can handle hundreds of gigabit routing. We've got a Netgate plan and never had any problems.

We see solid performance no matter what we're running on it. The fact is that it can run on a low-end, low-power fanless ARM CPU for a branch office. PfSense is usable in a lot of situations. It's also extremely scalable, which is also flexible in the sense that you can install it on some random old PC that you have at your house and use it for your home firewall. You can also use it in an enterprise with a multi-gigabit incoming connection and thousands of clients.

I rate Netgate support nine out of 10. I have contacted them a couple of times over the years. Each time I called them, they solved my problem or gave me a workaround within a reasonable time. It seemed like the people I talked to knew what they were doing. Sometimes, you call technical support and end up with first-level tech support who reads off a script. They don't listen to a word that you say and tell you to do all the things you've already done.

I've been able to get people who ask pertinent questions and ask for logs. They remote into my machine or SSH into the firewall, so I'm happy with it. It was worth the money that we paid when we needed it.

I have used Smoothwall and OPNsense. Back then, I used to have a weird firewall that I can never remember. If you count OpenWRT, a replacement firmware for Linksys, as a firewall. However, you can't install it on any x86 OS that you want.

It depends on whether the user is familiar with general concepts like putting an ISO on a flash drive and booting off of it using some basic command line. It's very easy if they've installed operating systems before and understand how to boot off a flash drive. Flash the image to a flash drive and boot off it, then follow the prompts. If they don't have that basic experience, I wouldn't tell them to deploy it themselves. I'd tell them to buy a box from Netgate with support.

That can be tricky if you've never done it or don't understand the concept of moving off of a flash drive and installing an OS. There's not anything Netgate can do about that because there are thousands of different pieces of hardware you can try deploying pfSense to, and pfSense can't give specific detailed instructions for every one of them. That's when you go buy Netgate.

The first time, it took me days because I had no idea what I was doing. Now, I can set up a pfSense with good basic functionality in an hour. It doesn't take very long. I've probably done it hundreds of times now.

After deployment, you've got to install patches periodically. If you're using Snort or Suricata, you've got to pay attention to those. If you're using pfBlocker, you've got to install patches. If you're not using any of the plugins like Snort, Suricata, pfBlocker, Grid, or any of those sorts of things for advanced functionality, then there isn't any maintenance other than periodically installing your patches like anything else.

The community edition provides all of the basic functions for free on your own hardware, and pfSense Plus comes with a Netgate appliance. It's a reasonable $200 bucks or so to buy pfSense for your hardware, and then it's $800 or $900 a year for commercial support, which is also reasonable for a firewall.

It's hard to gauge the total cost of ownership because there's a free, open-source version that, if you know a lot about pfSense already, it's almost zero cost. You can run it on any old hardware you've got. If you need support and multi-gigabit IPSec WAN speeds, you'll need to pay for that, but you will with anybody.

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. They could polish up a few things, especially regarding IDS/IPS rules. A few interface things are a little more complicated than necessary.

If you're moving to pfSense from a random Linksys or Netgate router, you need to realize it will be more difficult, and you'll need to learn more about networking concepts than you necessarily had to do with the random router that you've got. It's more complicated like that.

That's to be expected because you're either a techie kind of person who thinks building your own firewall is fun, and they're willing to spend the time and effort to learn it. Or you want an alternative to FortiGate, Juniper, or whatever, and you want to buy a commercial Netgate product. This is going to be more complicated than the Linksys router I bought for $80 dollars from Best Buy.