Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router (ARM64/Graviton)

I primarily use this for a small single-site, multi-source setup with multi-WAN inputs. I have a main fiber connection and a couple of failovers, and I manage different networks across different segments.

I really enjoy the flexibility of the interface setup configuration for my network VLANs. It is very easy to configure and set, and when I am doing multi-inputs with internet providers coming in, it is very easy to manage and set up with very little effort.

I think the package management and the updating process in Netgate pfSense  could be better. Whenever there is a release, knowing that you cannot update any of the packages until you have done the actual operating system update can be confusing. Beyond that, I do not have any major issues. There are generally some user interface updates and tweaks here and there, but this is a lower priority.

They come out about every 12 months, and I know that is one criticism against Netgate pfSense  that they are a little slower on development, but honestly, that is probably preferable because it is not constantly updating.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for about eight years in my career.

Netgate pfSense rates a 10 for stability, and I have experienced no issues there.

Scalability works well. I would say it is probably going to be a nine.

They are very responsive. Within an hour, two hours, or three hours, I generally get a response. I have only had to contact them maybe two or three times for very minor issues, but there is no issue there. I think they are very responsive.

I have used UniFi primarily in the last couple of years, probably three years now, and I have it as a separate site. It is nice, but it is not nearly as configurable. The biggest differentiator is the Netgate pfSense software, particularly the ability to do VPN with regard to Tailscale  and OpenVPN , which is very easy to use, whereas UniFi is not ideal. Additionally, the security in UniFi is open by default versus Netgate pfSense, which is closed, and closed is always going to be preferable.

For an entirely new site, it would take some time to configure and set up. If you are coming from an existing setup or configuration, you effectively export the configuration, upload it, and make some minor updates. Even with a booting environment, it is easy to go back or revert to an existing configuration if you make a mistake, so it might take some time, but it is not overly complicated. I would say it requires minimal effort, especially if there is a plan in place ahead of what the structure will be.

One person can do it, but you are going to need to be testing. Honestly, it is not anywhere near as complicated as a larger, more legacy offering, so I think it is very easy.

You are going to have manual updates in terms of the releases, checking those out, doing some testing, and confirming in non-prod environments. It is not that complicated. Even if you have the boot states, you can pretty easily do an operating system update and it is easy to manage.

I use Netgate pfSense  for my side gig customers' firewalls, and also for my home firewall.

One aspect I appreciate most about Netgate pfSense  is that it is easy to administer and very straightforward.

I see the benefits of Netgate pfSense immediately due to cost. It costs significantly less than Ubiquiti, Cisco, or other firewalls out there, and it is just easy to manage, which saves me and my customers money.

The packet inspection feature of Netgate pfSense is valuable; I have had to use it for troubleshooting and it provided the necessary data.

The dashboards for managing network traffic patterns and security threats in Netgate pfSense are simple and give me what I need.

Netgate pfSense's plugin ecosystem is very easy to manage; I simply point and click on the plugin and it installs directly, which is very well done.

The stability of Netgate pfSense is rock solid; I have never had any problems with stability.

The initial deployment of Netgate pfSense is very easy; you install it and it just works on the first try.

The downsides of Netgate pfSense include a lack of graphics to show a customer. I would prefer to see a more graphical UI similar to Ubiquiti.

Setting up fault tolerance on Netgate pfSense is difficult to do, and I do not enjoy that part.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for approximately 15 years.

The stability of Netgate pfSense is rock solid; I have never had any problems with stability.

I have contacted Netgate technical support regarding Netgate pfSense once. I had a hardware failure in one of my Netgate pfSense nodes and they provided an easy fix and got the customer back online quickly.

The initial deployment of Netgate pfSense is very easy; you install it and it just works on the first try.

For a new technician with no experience with any Netgate pfSense products, it would be easy for them to deploy for the first time because they can reference Google or the Netgate pfSense community web pages.

One person can easily do this.

Netgate pfSense costs significantly less than Ubiquiti, Cisco, or other firewalls out there, and it is easy to manage, which saves me and my customers money.

The pricing of Netgate pfSense is incredible; I love the pricing, which is the best part.

I prefer Ubiquiti because of the ease in setting up fault tolerance and the user interface on Ubiquiti.

Netgate pfSense requires just a monthly reboot on the firewalls and that is all. I would give them a 10 out of 10 as they are good. I give this product an overall rating of 8.

I would use Netgate pfSense  both at work and at home, as I really love their interface, the rule management, and their collaboration, especially with FreeBSD. Everything that they have done with the OpenVPN  parameters is impressive, and it is basically everything I need. The ease of use is exceptional, and whatever I need to do and change is just two to three clicks away.

What I appreciate the most about Netgate pfSense  is the ease and straightforward nature of the platform. I can set up a new office in less than 10 minutes.

What I appreciate the most about Netgate pfSense is the ease and straightforward nature of the platform. I can set up a new office in less than 10 minutes.

The benefits of using Netgate pfSense are that I can set up VPNs in less than two to three minutes, and then just deploy the file across my networks, where everybody would be connected in less than an hour.

The dashboards of Netgate pfSense bring all the necessary information that I need at a glance, and it is actually a live update every three to five seconds. It is spotless, and I have been able to catch issues before they hit operations.

Something that I do not appreciate about Netgate pfSense and I wish they would change would be the feature limitations. If I have pfSense Plus, I have all of the features, but if I am using my own spin-off server, which I cannot get pfSense Plus with, I do not get all the features, so I have to forcibly buy the hardware to get pfSense Plus.

I have been using Netgate pfSense since before they were acquired by Netgate, so it was more than 10 years.

Regarding the stability of Netgate pfSense, I have not seen any instability regarding lagging, crashing, or downtime. It all depends on the hardware on my home-brewed pfSenses. If I am using their hardware, it has been spotless with no issues.

The scalability of Netgate pfSense is great, as it can grow with what you need. It all depends on the equipment that you have, and at this moment, I have their highest tier, and I have been able to allocate more than 15,000 users, and it has not even reached 60% of utilization, so I am satisfied with four 10 gig uplinks.

I have contacted customer support of Netgate for all the equipment that I have bought, and it has been hands-on and perfect. I have needed images and I get the images in less than 24 hours when I need to do a special type of format that I do not have access to anymore, and I need to perform a format on it. In less than 24 hours, I would have the latest image which I could then install on the equipment. Hardware-wise, I would get in less than 48 hours the RAM or hard drives that have failed and were under warranty, so no issues on that.

If I were to put the support of Netgate pfSense on a scale from 1 to 10, I would give a score of nine.

I have used alternatives to Netgate pfSense, and it would be OpenSense. I just used it for not more than 20 minutes and I said goodbye to it.

The initial deployment of Netgate pfSense will be easy, since I have done it a couple of hundred times.

The deployment of Netgate pfSense goes the following way: the first thing is to just set up my WAN, my LAN, setting up the netmask, subnet, and gateways, and then just opening the NAT and doing all the NAT configurations, which is automatic if you have it set on auto. Then I just create my first firewall rule for an allow-all, and the setup is complete. Then I just need to start doing all the pretty tough magic that might be required, so for my type of setups, everything is less than 30 to 45 minutes. Afterwards, hardening depends on the business case.

All of this setup process of Netgate pfSense can be done by one person; you do not need a team for this. You can do it all alone.

The pricing of Netgate pfSense all depends on the hardware that I need. For a large office, the last appliance that I bought was around $2,000 and it is working perfectly with no issues whatsoever. I have no complaints about it, as my only complaint is when I want to do a home lab or something, and then I need to forcefully buy Netgate products to get pfSense Plus, but besides that, the pricing looks good.

Netgate pfSense requires a little maintenance on my end, as the maintenance part that I only get from them would be their software updates, and that is basically it. After that, everything is on my end: hardening, firewall rules, and all that kind of work. Besides that, it is just their quarterly or twice-a-year updates.

I have not really explored the packet inspection feature of Netgate pfSense that much, so I know I have it; I just have not played around with it right now.

I use the integrated VPN provisioning of Netgate pfSense, and it has not affected my network security setup at all; it has been flawless.

I would rate this product a 10 out of 10.

The typical use case for Netgate pfSense  is VPN connectivity, content blocking, and IDS/IPS. Users typically implement it for these specific purposes.

The best features of Netgate pfSense  include its open-source nature, and one of the most appealing aspects is the absence of recurring expenses, as there are no licensing fees. Users get enterprise-class firewall networking with this product.

Customers who use other firewall products such as Sophos or FortiGate  often conduct research and choose Netgate pfSense because the yearly expenses of other firewall products are higher compared to pfSense, which has no licensing fee. While there is no yearly licensing fee with this product, users still receive all the enterprise-class firewall features.

The stateful packet inspection feature is enterprise-class, and when compared to other firewall products, it matches their capabilities effectively.

Areas of Netgate pfSense that can be improved include the customers' requests for antivirus protection, which they refer to as Unified Threat Management, available in other products. Unified Threat Management can match up with other brands as well.

I have around one and a half years of experience working with Netgate pfSense.

Netgate pfSense is definitely a scalable solution.

The technical support from Netgate pfSense deserves a rating of 10 on a scale of one to ten, where one is the worst technical support and ten is the best.

The initial setup of Netgate pfSense is easy because it has a wizard. Users can run the wizard and set up the firewall within five minutes.

Netgate pfSense comes with Netgate appliances, in which pfSense is loaded, ensuring compatibility with different hardware platforms. The solution proves to be stable in operation.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution an 8.

I usually use it on premises, and I use it for different purposes. I use it for network security for my infrastructure, and I use it for my web servers and data servers that are on-premises.

My main use cases for Netgate pfSense  are proxy servers and IDS/IPS, blocking ads, clearing the network for adware and malware, and monitoring the network flow.

As an open-source solution, Netgate pfSense is highly flexible because a person with kernel-level or code-level experience can control the firewall as per their requirements, and there are multiple packages and tools readily available to integrate with Netgate pfSense. In the IT industry, most of the tools can be integrated with pfSense.

Adding packages to Netgate pfSense is very easy. I just need to search for the required package and then install and configure it.

Netgate pfSense has a very intuitive dashboard. The information is readily available on the dashboard.

Netgate pfSense has routing facilities that help minimize downtime while having multiple internet connections. If one bandwidth goes down, it automatically diverts to the other.

Netgate pfSense helps prevent data loss by monitoring data transactions and network protocols, allowing us to block certain amounts of data and implement policies to reduce malware and firewall threats.

From my perspective, the best feature of Netgate pfSense is the load balancer, as I usually take multiple internet connections. I can use both internet providers' bandwidth as a single network bandwidth, which helps in a very smooth network traffic flow. Netgate pfSense has a very interactive and intuitive dashboard that provides all the major and informative information that is readily available.

Netgate pfSense has positively impacted my organization because when we look at other firewalls or alternatives, they are costly.

For my requirements and use cases, it is sufficient for me, and I have never faced a need for additional features. AI would always be a plus point, and if pfSense could change its framework from FreeBSD and PHP to a different language and Linux OS, that could enhance security.

I have been providing services for network solutions and network security, and I have been using Netgate pfSense for almost four to five years.

Netgate pfSense is definitely stable; I've multiple sites using it, and they are live right now. I've at least 20 sites operational.

It is a scalable product. I would rate its scalability a seven out of ten.

I have never used the services of Netgate, but I can rate the product itself as a 10 out of 10 because it has been very helpful to me.

I have previously used Fortinet and Sophos. The major reason I switched from Fortinet and Sophos to Netgate pfSense was to mitigate the financial aspect, as those alternatives were costing us lakhs.

Deploying Netgate pfSense is very easy because I used to deploy it on my personal hardware. Whatever spare hardware I have, I install it directly on that. Installing and configuring it is very easy for me.

I deploy Netgate pfSense  for various companies. There are many startups in India that require a cost-effective solution that allows them to use their hardware and provide basic security.

Deploying infrastructure for a new company takes me approximately one day, unless there are separate requirements to configure, such as creating usernames and passwords for each user, which may take two to three days.

I do everything in-house by myself. I am the only person involved in the deployment.

I have seen a return on investment with cost savings after implementing Netgate pfSense, as other firewalls would cost me lakhs of rupees while pfSense is free.

Everything we need is covered in the free version of the open-source pfSense. I have never used the licensed version or required certified partner help to implement or deploy anything.

If we are not purchasing any support or incurring any Netgate costs, the total cost of ownership for Netgate pfSense is zero, as it is freely available to download and install, requiring only hardware for deployment.

The cost of other firewalls goes to thousands and lakhs of rupees compared to pfSense, which costs zero. If we opt for Fortinet, it costs about one lakh thirty thousand Indian rupees for the firewall, and then it costs up to almost fifteen to twenty thousand annually for the user subscription. With Netgate pfSense, all those things get covered at zero cost.

I did not evaluate any other options aside from Netgate pfSense because it was the only solution I could find that effectively met my needs. It works for our use cases.

In terms of data-driven decisions, there is a package that can help me understand each and every packet and time. I have not gone through that avenue yet, but it allows us to get all the data for data-driven decisions.

There is a paid feature to increase performance, but there are multiple tweaks available in the advanced settings that can help increase bandwidth or usability based on requirements.

I have not used pfSense Plus on Amazon EC2  VMs because there was no requirement.

I would rate Netgate pfSense a ten out of ten.