We are using this solution mainly in the education sector, including universities or engineering colleges.

I have used Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router VLAN support, and I find VLAN support is good. VLAN support provides unlimited VLANs and is well-implemented.

VPN tunneling has also been good, as it provides unlimited VPN tunneling capabilities.

The load balancing capabilities of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router are good.

Regarding the drawbacks or weak points I have noticed, I reviewed all current firewalls and it seems all are on an equal level, including Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router. There are no major differences or drawbacks. You can customize this product and choose your own hardware.

In future releases and updates of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router, the basic feature I would like to see is that it remains open-source with no recurring cost, which is a big feature in a country like India. A captive portal would be an additional feature that would be good to have.

I have been working with this product for nearly 15 to 17 years.

My experience with the product is that it is a stable and good product that is easy to use. It is an open source product.

I would rate stability from one to ten as a nine in comparison to all other firewalls because it is a cheaper option for deployment and price.

I would rate the scalability of the solution from one to ten as an eight. There is another open-source software, OPNSense, where there is major development compared to Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router.

The approximate time deployment for Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router requires only one hour or a maximum of two hours. It is user-friendly.

I am not currently working only with Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router, as we work with other firewalls also. However, it is a good choice for users.

The other firewalls I am using include Fortinet and Sophos.

I would assess the effectiveness of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router's traffic shaping as good, but I would give a six marks only for that compared to others because in the past few years, there has been a stop of improvement or lack of improvement showing in Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router. That is why OPNSense is quite good now.

The benefits of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router VPN services to my remote access strategy are comparatively the same with all others. The basic thing is that all these modules or VPN tunneling or others are unlimited use in Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router, and in other firewalls, you need to purchase additionally.

I do use Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router Multi-WAN capabilities. Basically, it is customized, so you can choose your own hardware. It is scalable, depending on your requirements.

My job position is that I am an owner of a company that is involved in managed networks. I rate this product overall as a nine out of ten.

I have used the VLAN support of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router. We actually use two types of VPN, OpenVPN and WireGuard, and both of them are working perfectly fine; it is great.

The load balancing capabilities have helped my IT infrastructure. It has helped our network management, as we have a couple of LAN networks and WAN networks.

The effectiveness of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router traffic shaping is quite good, but I am not very satisfied with the interface for control. It needs some upgrading in speed, so I would not say it is too complicated or obsolete.

As a firm, we have been using Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router for a couple of years, and for me, it has been around one year, as long as I have been here.

I do not use the multi-WAN capability of Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router.

I do not have complaints about Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router with Firewall, VPN, and Router; it is really comfortable for use, and it does a pretty good job.

I would rate my experience with Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall_VPN_Router as eight out of ten. Mostly the interface is the reason I rate it eight out of ten, but I do not have anything else I would alter or improve. My overall review rating for this product is eight out of ten.

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.

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.

We use pfSense and Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router to establish a VPN tunnel between our client and our headquarters to transfer data between client and our equipment. It's very simple to use, efficient, up to date, and the hardware is very available; it's very safe.

We use pfSense and Netgate pfSense Plus Firewall/VPN/Router to establish a VPN tunnel between our client and our headquarters to transfer data between client and our equipment. It's very simple to use, efficient, up to date, and the hardware is very available; it's very safe.

Everything works well inside pfSense. It's affordable. For our use of pfSense, it meets one hundred percent of our needs. It features easy installation, and we use direct installation on the equipment rather than cloud deployment.

Regarding tuning, it's not really an advantage as we need that functionality.

The most significant drawback in recent years has been the cessation of firmware release downloads. In the past, when we wanted to update our equipment, we simply downloaded the latest firmware. Now pfSense has changed its policies. Instead of providing firmware for download, they require customers to proceed with updates through the cloud, which isn't an optimal solution for us. I prefer the old method of updating where we could download the latest firmware and install it directly. Without an internet connection, we cannot update our equipment, which is problematic.

Everything is very stable for us at the moment; we have encountered no problems.

Adding new equipment is very easy for our organization.

I am not in charge of networking in our company, so I may not be the most appropriate person to answer detailed questions. The solution is used for security to establish private communication.

We use OpenSense for our operations.

I prefer this product because it is open source. Another thing is that it is Unix-based, so it is not affected by viruses or attacks. Support is also available.

With the right hardware, its VPN capabilities and performance are amazing.

From my usage, controlling the bandwidth for each user is valuable. Also, the availability of working as a backup or aggregating downloads is useful. All these capabilities are key.

Its interface is simple and easy.

Maybe they can add two-factor authentication.

I have been working with this solution for almost four to five years.

It is very stable. I would rate it a ten out of ten for stability.

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

We have 60 to 65 users.

I have not taken any technical support from Netgate. I was able to get all the information from the web or Netgate forums. I did not use their technical support because it is an open-source and free edition.

I used OPNsense.Using the module for controlling the bandwidth for the users in OPNsense required payment. There was also a subscription, and I dislike subscribing to any service.

It was not complex. It was straightforward. They had a wizard with ten steps. I just had to fill in the information.

It took me about 45 minutes to be completely up and running with my configuration.

There were no third parties involved. It was implemented on-site.

I am using the free version.

I would recommend pfSense to others. It is free. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I use pfSense as a home router firewall on enterprise equipment purchased from eBay. I utilize it for personal interests and not in a professional IT capacity, mainly for home setups and maintaining VPNs to family members.

It is very easy. An enterprise person who has been doing this all day long will find it as easy as a command line if not easier than the command line. I would prefer not to have to set up another server to monitor my links and everything else. I like that I can go into my one dashboard. It is all running on that one box. I am happy. A large enterprise will have monitoring services, so this might not be as critical for them. For small and probably medium-sized businesses, having the user interface and being able to import configs is very powerful, but it is probably a mixed bag for larger companies that already have services and other things, and GUI does not matter to them.

It provides a single pane of glass. When I come in, I can immediately look at my gateways, link connections, services, etc. It shows my DNS blocker, CPU usage, and memory usage. I can see that my gateways are online, what traffic graphs I have selected, and all my services are up. That is what I like about it. This is what I will miss if I go to VyOS. I know I will have to set something else up specifically to show me all the monitoring and make sure that I have that warm fuzzy that everything is working.

Being able to see in a single pane of glass what is happening makes it very easy for me to react and know what is going on. For example, I changed some tunnels to my family in upstate New York. I am down in Philadelphia. We were having some connection issues, and through its interface, I was able to easily identify the issue. I had a tunnel configured wrong and changed some settings, and we were back up in ten minutes.

Its ease of use is great. If I do not continue forward with pfSense, it would be going to VyOS, which is all command line. pfSense's user interface is very nice for simpler configs and monitoring. It is very stable, and it works very well. Flexibility is great, and the plug-in model is very nice for pfBlocker and other things. It is a very robust solution that works very well.

They could do better with their licensing in the home use space. For me, that has been a struggle.

I got three pfSense Plus licenses when they were giving them away to the community for free because pfSense decided that they do not enable the QAT. They do not enable the network acceleration function that is on the Intel Atom CPUs and some of the Xeon D's in the Community edition. IPSec acceleration and OpenVPN acceleration do not work on those smaller boxes because it is going to use the CPU, so I got the three licenses, which worked well. It was all good, but they decided to take that away and are charging $129 a year. Somebody savvy like me is going to pay for it. I will pay for it for myself, but I also maintain the routers of my parents, my mother-in-law, and a friend. I have IPSec tunnels to them, and they need the acceleration technology that is disabled, but they are not willing to pay $129. I wrote to the Netgate salesperson asking to consider a model with a $60 per year subscription because they are putting a barrier on themselves. They have abandoned the Community edition. There has not been an update in a year, but then you hear that they are contributing. They are making updates, but they have not released it. There is an opportunity to make more money in the home user space if they change their licensing model.

The other little hiccup that I see with it is they have it tied to MAC addresses. It generates a license based on the MAC address. If you change any MAC address, you have to issue a new license. They were nice about it for me when they did a one-time change for me, but if I put another Ethernet adapter in the box, it says it needs another license. They should work on that. It seems they are going to change this.

I have probably been using it for more than a decade at this point.

My instance has been up for over two years without a reboot, so it is very good.

It is a mixed bag because I have had 1 gig symmetrical Internet. I have 2 gigs now. As you get further up the stack, it is going to get worse. I do not have options past 2 gigs. I have 25 gigs between some servers. I have 10 gigs with a lot of machines. They have their TNSR project that sits at a thousand dollars a year, but I cannot even try that. They have entirely removed the Community edition for that, but it has been great with 2 gigs and 1 gig.

They are super fast, super nice people, and very accommodating. The quality of support is great. They are better than I would have expected them to be. I would rate them a ten out of ten.

Previously, I have mainly used VyOS, Cisco ASA, OPNSense, and Fortinet.

Cisco ASAs are very nice. They compare very well, and they have their single pane of glass. They have GUI and no license fees yearly. Netgate will say the same thing. If you buy their hardware, you get the license for free, but they triple the price of a new piece of equipment.

The initial setup is not easy right now because I have to put my email in, and they send me a link. I would prefer to have separate images for the Community and Plus editions.

When you go to the installer, it asks you if you want Plus. You have to put a valid license in to get it to install Plus. In my situation, all three of my Plus licenses have expired, and they all continue to work. If I need to reinstall that on a new box, I can only install the Community edition. When I boot it up, I cannot import my config because my config is from Plus. For me, it would make more sense if I could download and install a Plus image, and it gives you a 24-hour period to put in a license and have it activated. Something to that effect would make it easier because I cannot imagine I am the only person who has had this issue.

The licensing model needs improvement, especially for home users. There should be more flexibility to change licenses with hardware changes. The pricing model could be more accessible for home users.

The license is locked to a specific device. There are other services where you can buy a pfSense, and you get that license for a year. You can put it on any single device, and it moves with you. I do not want to have to call them to get the license changed. I would prefer that when I put it on a new device, they know it is registered to this new device. It is not on the old one. They should handle licensing differently for home users. They should try to differentiate it from enterprise.

There should be a cheaper tier of pfSense Plus for home users. They need to improve the pricing for a home user. They can look at the numbers. They know how many installs they have.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. It is a great product, but they have sold it in a way that does not align with the way I need to use it or the people that I have it with are going to use it. It practically does not make sense versus what else is out there. VyOS is free. Its Community edition is free, and they update their Community edition first. It is the opposite of what pfSense is doing. They are updating the Plus edition first and the Community edition comes second.

I have Netgate 4100 and pfSense Plus.

My career is in IT, and Netgate is part of my home network, which does hot failover between two ISPs because I work from home a lot and do not want to be disconnected. It handles all my home security, manages remote access to my systems when I am abroad, and hosts some services such as health checks from Route 53, WireGuard, etc.

I was able to see its benefits immediately. One issue it helped me solve was that I was hitting bandwidth caps from one ISP and did not understand why. It turned out that the ISP was counting all return traffic from outsiders probing my home network. They would find my Linux device and see that there was an open SSH port, and they would hammer at it. This generated an enormous amount of traffic. Installing pfSense allowed me to detect it accurately and shut down this traffic.

It is hard to say if pfSense helped prevent data loss in any way, but unauthorized access to my network and the data I have on my network from the outside is not feasible now.

I can do all the things I want to do from the device. I do not have to set up services on other hosts. I do not have to have any other UI in place. I can just go to pfSense and do all the things I need. The slight caveat to that is that I am not operating AWS or GCP from pfSense. I have set up my health check from Route 53. I have set a couple of very simple things in AWS, but I do the rest of the things from pfSense. It is pretty close to a single pane of glass.

I use pfSense Plus and found pfSense Plus to be more robust than the Community Edition. Any network device needs occasional prophylactic reboots. The frequency of issues, such as the tables being all dirty or memory being scrambled, has significantly reduced with pfSense Plus. The hardware has considerably improved. Because I was running Community Edition on an older Netgate, it is difficult to understand where I am getting the improvement from, but pfSense Plus has certainly been a lot more robust. I have fewer instances where one of the interfaces just stopped working. That used to happen with Community Edition fairly regularly. I have not had that trouble at all here. Upgrades have been a lot smoother. They are down to just a reboot, whereas, with Community Edition, I had to regularly wipe the device, reinstall the operating system on pfSense, and load in my configuration from backup, which I was able to do and usually worked. I spend a lot less time in system maintenance using pfSense Plus than with Community Edition.

Its out-of-the-box performance meets my needs. When I wonder whether my network is a little sluggish, I am able to go in and find out things, such as one of my ISPs being dropped out of my load balancing config because of too many latent pings. It has been very useful and easy to do those sorts of things.

It is very flexible. I have not found a use case that I could not satisfy with the device. There are more use cases I am not currently using. For instance, I do not have an HA setup. I use it for my internal home DNS and DHCP services and to split the VLANs so that I have Internet of Things and guest VLANs. I trust the device's VLAN. It helps me deny traffic from large areas of the world that do not need to interact with my firewall.

With such solutions, there is always a learning curve, but with enough foundation, I have never found that curve very hard to climb. Whenever I have tackled a new thing, a little bit of searching on the web and playing with the UI has always gotten me where I wanted to be.

It is best practice to remove all installed packages before you do an upgrade because most upgrade failures have to do with having installed packages. These are additional packages that supply functionality above and beyond what comes in the base operating system. We have to remove them one at a time. I would prefer being able to click a button that says," I am upgrading, so uninstall everything and store in the configuration file what I had installed." It already keeps the configuration of all the packages installed. Even if I do not install them again, the configuration for those packages is still there after the upgrade. It would be very nice to have a one-click feature. There can be a check flag on the upgrade screen to remove packages first and then another check flag to reinstall them after the upgrade. This would be extremely handy, particularly when I have a lot of packages. It takes me about 15 to 20 minutes to uninstall and reinstall them all after the upgrade.

A couple of weeks ago, I would have had another area for improvement, even though it was outside their purview. They are switching DHCP providers from ISV to something, but it did not have a feature I wanted, which was client hostname registration for statically served IP addresses. I rely on this for host management inside my trusted network, but that feature has been released now, so I feel more comfortable moving to the new DHCP version they support.

I have used the solution for at least seven years.

Since operating Netgate 4100 and pfSense Plus, anytime I wondered if the device itself was laggy, it was not the device. It was something upstream causing the issue. I have an HA configuration and a load balancer, so if one of the links goes down, the device gets a little laggy as it drops that interface and brings up the other one as the primary. If the ISP is flapping, this will happen continuously, introducing a lot of network lag, but that is trivial now that I understand what is happening. As soon as I start feeling lag, I check the logs to see if that is the cause. The device itself has not ever been latent or lagging. It has been rock solid.

I found it very scalable. I am out of ports on my device because of having multiple ISPs and VLANs. I do not have an HA setup, so the device scaled very well for my needs personally. When we deployed an HA pair in a professional situation, we had a much larger network, and it scaled to cover that easily.

I have only contacted them to get a download of the operating system image ahead of any upgrade attempt just in case I needed to start from scratch.

I have used a number of different solutions. I have used firewall software and hardware of all kinds, both professionally and personally, reaching back to the early 2000s.

The initial deployment was done many years ago. I remember it being pretty straightforward back then. One of the things I enjoyed about the device is that the configuration file is like the starter batter where someone gives you a lump of yeast and dough pinched from someone else's.

I have been able to roll my configuration file forward every time I switched devices or operating systems. This has made it a lot easier to maintain the device. Even when I had to completely wipe the machine and start over, it was pretty trivial in almost all cases. It has certainly been a lot easier since I started using pfSense Plus to get my configuration back up and running again.

When I ran an IT shop a few years ago, we had an off-the-shelf solution where years ago, somebody had built a firewall solution using a couple of rack-mount PCs and some open-source security package. It was a black box. Nobody around understood it anymore, and I needed to replace it. I went to look for hardware that my shop wanted to use, like Cisco, but the price was well out of our budget, so we went with a pair of HA Netgate devices and pfSense. That solved our problem. I thought it was a good price point for a good solution.

Their pricing is quite reasonable. It is very good. Every firewall is a router, but typically, in an enterprise situation, these are separate. My home is essentially a small office. My partner and I work from home a lot, and I am the system administrator, network administrator, and security administrator. The values are high because I am not maintaining two machines. I am not spending my own power on two different devices. For small office or home use, such as mine, pfSense is valuable because it combines multiple functions into one low-power device.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.