I use Netgate pfSense personally at home and the data center, our headquarters, so it is for enterprise and personal use.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is an open-source tool and is available at a very low cost.

In terms of flexibility, the tool is great, especially the fact that it is open source. On Netgate pfSense Community Edition, people can write stuff into it and get plugins for it. Netgate pfSense Plus version does a review process with the help of Netgate, so you don't have to have many plugins for it. The tool is very open to modification if you need to do that.

The benefits related to the product can be experienced immediately after the product is deployed, especially in terms of the speed improvement and features that we don't have with the current solution or the current technologies that we don't have with our current solution.

To deal with data loss while using Netgate pfSense, you can always export the logs or dump them into a log server, specifically a Syslog server. I don't really view the boxes in the data warehouse other than the logs. There are features in the tool that we can send out to the syslog server, which is what we do in our company.

In my enterprise, we are getting ready to push out two hundred devices, and I don't see a single pane of glass management. I don't necessarily consider Netgate pfSense to be an enterprise product because it doesn't offer a single pane of glass management. With Netgate pfSense, you have to touch all devices to make a change. My company has been messing around with Netgate pfSense for some scripting on it, but it is still not what I am used to using in the enterprise. One window for controlling all devices doesn't exist in the tool.

Netgate pfSense provides features that help minimize downtime since it offers high availability on the boxes. You can use multiple WAN interfaces, so multiple ISPs can be plugged into your device to help manage if the service from one ISP goes down.

Netgate pfSense provides visibility that enables our company to make data-driven decisions since it offers graphs, traffic graphs, and firewall graphs. I can see if there is a client on the network that is just flooding everything. Yeah. The tool has graphs, charts, and log files.

The visibility of Netgate pfSense helps optimize performance. If I see there is a network that is a guest network that is just maxing out at 100 percent, I can attempt to give them some more bandwidth. I can modify the quality of service to give them better or more bandwidth.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionalities, if I assess the total cost of ownership of Netgate pfSense, I would say that I get what I pay for when it comes to Netgate. I get more than I am paying for, meaning the return on investment is great. I feel reluctant to talk about the good return on investment experienced by my company from the use of the tool because I don't want Netgate to charge more money, and as a non-profit company, it can hurt us. The total cost of ownership is fine since our company does not have to spend a lot of money on it. I know that if there was a Linux conference three or four weeks ago, and they were giving me some grief points on how it dies after buying boxes from Netgate in a year, it dies, but I have not experienced that. My total cost of ownership is great. Other people would buy the box, which would die in a year, so they would just lose money.

Netgate pfSense needs to have a single dashboard for managing all devices.

As an enterprise customer, I expect Netgate's sales personnel to inform me of the new devices that are coming out. For example, there was a time when I was getting ready to buy a device, and then I thought that I needed to hold on, and so the order failed. I thought I needed to wait a few days before ordering a new device. I was getting ready to order another device, which was Netgate 1541, but after two days, Netgate 8300 was released, and it was far better than what I was getting ready to buy. I was really disappointed that the salesperson from Netgate didn't ask me to hold off on my decision to buy Netgate 1541. You don't have to tell me that something brand new is coming out if you don't want to spill the beans or anything like that, but it would have been nice if Netgate had asked me to hold off on my decision to buy Netgate 1541. I was getting ready to buy a product that would have been, immediately two days later, an old technology. I just expect more from a salesperson. When going through Netgate's website, while trying to buy Netgate 1541, I saw there was a list of features at the bottom of the product page, so I had to select the features I wanted, but I couldn't have all the features at the same time, and the website would prevent me from adding extra features, which actually was the cause for the order to fail. I had added features that you can't have at the same time, but nowhere on the website did it say anything like that, and that led to a delay in my time frame. I was trying to get something to solve a problem at a certain time, and then it wasn't until a day later, a day and a half later, that Netgate called and said that I couldn't have all of the tool's features, which was something that messed up my installation time. Issues with the product are associated with feature requests. It is not necessarily the box itself but more of the company that needs to consider improving its approach. For the box itself, everything in a single frame should be released.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for five to seven years. I am a customer of the product.

I haven't had any device crashes yet. The stability is great. I have not had a device crash. When there was a device crash, it was for the one at my home when we had five power outages, and it burned my hard drives, but that was not because of Netgate's box.

It is easy to scale up. I will be visiting a site soon that has Netgate 1100, and I am going to put in a Netgate 4200 over there. I don't think I am going to have any issues. I will be able to copy things off the config of Netgate 1100 and dump it on Netgate 4200 with a few modifications. The tool's scalability is great. If I need to add a drive or replace one of the hard drives in the tool, then that is something that can be done easily.

Based on the customer support for our account to figure out why an order didn't get through or why we can't get this part, we have contacted Netgate's team, but not for actual support. The tool's community is fantastic, and it is one of the driving pieces that I sell to my decision-makers, considering that the community supports the solution. With community support, I am not just calling out to five or ten people. Instead, it is possible to reach out to the world to respond to an issue that might have been of a lot of concern.

I have never contacted the tool's technical support team for any technical support, but it was just a question with my order.

I have experience with Juniper, NetScreen, OPNsense, Cisco, and Meraki. If I consider the box itself, Netgate pfSense is better than the other tools I have used. 

From an enterprise perspective, I can't say Netgate pfSense is better than all the tools I have used because it doesn't have that enterprise management capability. As soon as they get that enterprise management capability, Netgate pfSense is the best out there in the market.

The ease or difficulty in the tool's initial deployment phase that one may experience depends on the box. If I speak about Netgate 1100, I believe that using a switched network interface or ports can be a little more challenging than trying to work on VLANs. The other boxes that aren't switched, like Netgate 4100 and the models above it, work perfectly fine and function as I would typically expect, so the installation is not hard at all, but you do have to know networking. I always hire people, and they are used to having stuff done for them when it comes to tools like Meraki. You just plug it in, and it works. The people I hire have no idea how to do any type of networking or act as IT or MSP professionals, and they can only work in the framework for which they have been trained. You do need to understand fundamental networking technology to make the tool work. For me, the installation is easy. If you don't understand fundamental networking technology, it can be hard to install the tool.

One person can manage the product's deployment phase.

There is a requirement to maintain the product since we have to touch each and every box to do software updates. The tool does require maintenance on our part.

I use the Netgate pfSense Community Edition and the paid version called Netgate pfSense Plus.

Netgate pfSense Community Edition is great and free. For Netgate pfSense Plus, we have to buy Netgate's boxes, and the pricing is great. As a non-profit organization, I would like to have a discount from Netgate, but if you are ready to buy a hundred boxes, it would be nice to have a discount. I understand that Netgate pfSense does not charge a lot more for the box than what we are paying for them. The pricing is fine.

In terms of how difficult it is to add features to Netgate pfSense and configure them, if I talk about writing from scratch, it is something that I don't do. If someone has a plugin, pulling that in is ridiculously simple. If I say that I want a Tailscale plugin, then I can put it in, and it is already in the system, and as long as I know how to do networking, you can figure out how to use a plugin since it is not hard at all in regards to Netgate pfSense Community Edition and Netgate pfSense Plus.

I have not used Netgate pfSense on Amazon EC2 virtual machines.

One needs to realize the difference in the switched version, and to do so it is important to understand Netgate 1100 and Netgate 2100 and the individually addressable ones since it is the area that threw me when I first got Netgate 1100, I was like, what in the world am I working on currently. Managing the VLANs on the tool threw me a ton, and it took me about an hour to figure out what was going on with the solution.

As the tool really needs centralized management, I rate it an eight to nine out of ten.

I USE Netgate pfSense for home networks, lab environments, and R&D. In production, professional career-wise, I have built pfSense production firewalls that run in various configurations and high availability for different organizations serving a different number of clients and servicing any amount of requests throughout any given day. 

It also serves thousands to tens of millions of requests a second a day from small to large deployments.

Netgate pfSense is an extremely flexible solution. It is an open-source tool that has a very large community of professionals, enthusiasts, and hobbyists alike. There is a lot of flexibility in doing whatever you want with it. It also offers enterprise-grade support so that you can have something equivalent to the Cisco enterprise-grade data center firewall product. You could build that with pfSense or OpenSense, which is a derivative of pfSense.

The initial benefit I saw of pfSense was way before I ever used it professionally. It is a robust tool that can replace your consumer-grade firewall router solution. I also saw immediate benefits in my professional career as it is a powerful solution that can be compared to other solutions like Palo Alto or Meraki today.

Netgate pfSense can be a fully functional L7 firewall. You can not only have the base Layer 3 functionality of the firewall, but you can add things like Snort and pfBlockerNG to build out and become an L7 firewall doing actual inspection and security analysis.

It is very easy to add and configure features to Netgate pfSense.

pfSense has a built-in auto-configuration backup. While that is technically data loss from the sense of protecting the firewall, it is a feature Netgate offers to every pfSense user, licensed or not. You get this feature if you have a Netgate appliance. Just using pfSense won't get you that. There are third-party packages you can use to set up pfSense configuration backups if you don't have pfSense Plus.

In terms of data loss outside of that, you configure it in a way that puts it as a security device. By default, pfSense is not inherently a security device. It is a Layer 3 filtering firewall. If you want it to be a security appliance beyond basic TCP/IP Layer 3 filtering, you can run Snort or pfBlockerNG to turn it into a security appliance. Doing so can aid in data loss prevention by using the tool for basic intrusion detection prevention.

Netgate pfSense provides a single-pane-of-glass management capability. Its dashboard has a lot of prebuilt functionality, allowing you to have a single-page view of the firewall's status and everything going on with it.

pfSense Plus provides features that help us minimize downtime as a supporting part of the infrastructure.

pfSense Plus provides visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions. The kind of data-driven decisions that could be made with information from pfSense are things like how much bandwidth I am using and what is the throughput of all my band connectivity.

I can also decide whether I need to go from a 1 Gig network to a 10 Gig network or a 2.5 Gig network and whether I need to increase my commit for my WAN circuit because we see that we are averaging above 99%, etc. The kind of decisions that it can help you make are related to your network and your connectivity.

The visibility that pfSense Plus provides helps us to optimize performance. It could help you to improve performance on the network side. It is, after all, a firewall router, so it is a network piece of equipment. It could help improve performance in that if you are actively monitoring, pulling data from pfSense, or actively reviewing the different types of information and graphs that pfSense provides, you could make decisions to see that a machine is consistently using lots of network traffic.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for 15 years.

I have pfSense Plus in production. I have both pfSense Plus and pfSense Community Edition (CE) running at home. They are essentially the same, and the only difference between them is the support and auto-configuration backup.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Netgate pfSense to deploy to our customers.

Netgate pfSense has a lot of different applications you can use for VPN and multi-way traffic. It's very simple as far as firewall rules and NAT rules go. It's an overall solid application and product. We don't really have too many RMAs, and there are no monthly fees associated with it.

Netgate pfSense is extremely flexible due to the nature of the multi packages that you can use for different VPNs. You can do the same thing in multiple different ways, and it's very handy when you're trying to troubleshoot problems.

You can add packages to pfSense with Snort and pfBlocker to keep hackers out. We've been using pfSense by creating rules that only allow our IP addresses into those devices. That way, they are never open to the outside world, and we've been doing that for almost 20 years.

Netgate pfSense has a high-availability application called CARP that allows you to put two devices in failover mode.

The visibility that pfSense Plus provides helps us optimize performance because that's all in the updates they push out.

We use pfSense Plus on Amazon EC2 VMs, and it's been pretty good and fairly quick in testing.

The solution should provide a single pane of glass and a management console for all devices.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for 20 years.

The solution is fairly stable unless there's an environmental issue.

I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for scalability.

We have previously used SonicWall. SonicWall has all the packages prebuilt. With Netgate pfSense, you have to download and install the packages and then configure everything. These include antivirus and anti-spam, which you have to turn on, but they cost money.

It's really just a configuration setup. SonicWall and Netgate pfSense are two very different firewalls. It's very difficult to compare them other than monthly and yearly licensing versus buying at once.

The solution's initial setup is super easy. I've taught several people with little knowledge of how to do it, and it's been very simple to explain and set up.

From start to finish, the solution's deployment can be done by one person in probably an hour.

I think Netgate needs to charge a nominal fee for the actual software so that it gets paid for because a lot of people skirt the licensing and use the community edition. Netgate should charge something nominal like $50 a year for the community edition to deter people from using it for everything.

Depending on the specifics, adding and configuring features to pfSense could take three or four hours for a RADIUS server with a VPN or less than two minutes to set up a NAT rule.

We were embedded with pfSense in 2023. It took us some time after we deployed the solution to see the benefits.

I have 236 devices in production. Some of the cheaper models are more susceptible to power outages, which cause them to fail. However, some of the more robust models are expensive, but they last for many, many years, and there's very little interaction that we have to do with them.

The only maintenance the solution needs is just updates to the device as required.

New users should do some basic research before configuring Netgate pfSense. There's lots of information about the tool on the web, and it's very easy to get the answers to your questions because somebody's already probably run into that issue. There are tutorials on basic configuration on YouTube.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I've set up Netgate pfSense for my friend's law practice for his access to VPN after the AT&T service dropped their FortiGate. It was so much easier to use. The VPN and VLAN support I needed that Meraki and AT&T tried to give me was crap. I also use Netgate pfSense at home as my router or office network.

I also have the tool set up for a remote person in Texas for a site-to-site VPN when she needs it to do some work. I've currently got three of them that I use personally and professionally.

I love the solution's flexibility. You can buy their hardware, get support, and use other people's hardware. Netgate is constantly releasing patches and updates, which is nice. There is also tons of free material on the web and on YouTube on how to set it up.

We saw the benefits of Netgate pfSense within weeks of deploying it because it gave me the ability to segment my network quickly. It was pretty straightforward and much easier than some of the competitors out there.

Netgate pfSense gives me a single pane of glass management. It gives me everything I need with regard to the firewall.

Netgate pfSense Plus provides features that help us minimize downtime. The ability to do high availability and failover of LAN links is a nice feature.

The visibility that pfSense Plus provides helps us optimize performance. I can see traffic analysis and tune it a little better.

I'd say the solution's total cost of ownership will replace itself within a year. The stability of being able to download a different package if someone needs it has made my life a lot easier.

Some of the functions are not menu-driven. You have to know to click here, then go over to this setting and click here. 

It would be nice if the solution had a wizard for some of the complex functions. When trying to walk people through something, I have to look at the video or read their document.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for three years.

I haven't had any stability issues with Netgate pfSense. The tool might get bogged down if I add more things. I still reboot mine once a month. Other than that, I haven't had any crashes.

It'd be nice if I could add memory to their appliances to improve their performance. Scalability, to me, is really another hardware device. I haven't seen an option to change the hardware.

The solution's technical support team is very responsive. Regarding the quality of their answers, the support team is excellent and very knowledgeable.

Positive

We had the FortiGate firewall that AT&T was providing, which they discontinued. Unfortunately, their replacement was less compatible than the FortiGate, so we jumped to Netgate pfSense. We were doing managed services at AT&T. I dumped their managed service at my firewall because Netgate pfSense was so easy to use.

Since I've been in IT for years, the solution's initial setup is simple for me. If you have a device that doesn't have a keyboard and you're using a serial console, it's a little bit kludgy on what to do. You can figure it out if you read the documents ahead of time.

Deploying the solution for my home use took me about a day and a half. It was all about design and learning all the functions. Deploying the solution for the business took me about two weeks because I had to figure out all the rules. Software-wise, it was easy, but we had to figure out what the customer wanted.

The solution's pricing is comparable to other products. The basic plan provides the support I need.

Depending on what you're trying to do, adding and configuring features to Netgate pfSense is somewhere in the middle between easy and difficult. Some things are really simple, while others are difficult.

Remembering everything you have to do is challenging because sometimes you have to click somewhere, and then you don't remember where you clicked. So, it'd be nice if everything was better tied together.

I initially started with the free version on third-party hardware, and then they discontinued it, so I just bought the appliance.

I prefer to do manual updates myself, but the solution lets me know if there's an update. I regularly do firmware updates when they are available.

The solution provides great support, articles, and a lot of documents.

New users should document what they want to do upfront and then try to look at all the documents on the Netgate site. My biggest advice would be not to try to do it cold. If you're going to use the VLANs, figure out all that information for your routing. If you don't have a document, you won't be able to implement it very easily.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use the solution as the main firewall and a proxy for load balancing our web servers.

The best feature of the tool is its all-in-one capabilities. It is a firewall with built-in IDS and IPS, load balancing, and VPN connections. The VPN integration, particularly with internal AD environments, provides stable connections. Centralized authentication is a notable benefit as well. We primarily use it for these features on our server level and are planning to expand their use in our complex environment to connect employees and services. 

Netgate pfSense is cost-effective because you can start using it for free. You can research how to install and configure everything, then install it virtually on any device or partition some hardware. This allows you to start using a firewall without any initial cost.

For larger companies, if you have one or two people skilled with the tool, they can design the complete network using it. That's all you need. You don't have to invest in expensive subscriptions or big hardware setups.

My only suggestion is that Netgate pfSense implement more graphical monitoring. While there are accounts with add-ons for graphical monitoring of data networking, IPS, IDS, and firewall-level events, having more graphical representations like blocks would make the tool more capable. Although it has commercial support and a good GUI, it can still be challenging for someone without firewalls, command lines, and networking knowledge.

Adding features to the solution through packages is somewhat limited. The marketplace doesn't have as many options as you might expect.

One example is the IPS/IDS system. Netgate pfSense still uses Snort 2.9, even though version 3.0 has been out for about a year. Version 3.0 offers important improvements like multi-core support, significantly speeding up processing. The solution seems slow to update to newer versions of these third-party packages.

The tool should provide beta versions with the latest package updates sooner so users can benefit from new features and improvements.

Another issue is the lack of a package marketplace. Despite being open source and customized by many developers globally, there isn't a wide selection of community-created packages. The reasons for this aren't clear to me - it could be security concerns or other factors.

Based on my experience using Netgate pfSense for about four years, I can't say the improvements in our environment are solely due to the product. It's a combination of Netgate pfSense and another monitoring tool we use.

Monitoring is crucial. The easier the monitoring and user interface, the simpler our team can work on and investigate issues. Accessing data becomes more difficult when you use commands or other complex methods.

With our third-party tools, log viewing is very straightforward. The tool logs everything important. This was helpful when our site was slow, and we needed to determine why. The logs from Negate pfSense and our IT systems help us identify issues.

However, the solution's combination with a third-party monitoring tool provides a graphical interface. This makes it much easier to review logs and pinpoint problems.

If Netgate pfSense had a better graphical interface, it would be one of the best products available. I think the graphical interface should be much better and easier to monitor. For example, I encountered errors when I installed HAProxy, a load balancer available in the solution. It was difficult to determine the errors because the backend wasn't working properly. It took us a long time to identify the exact issue because more detailed error information isn't directly available in the current interface. You must go through different steps to trace and see what errors are coming up.

If the tool could improve in this area and provide more error details directly in the interface, that would be beneficial. As for packages, if they could update to newer versions of third-party packages more quickly, that would be helpful. I understand they might not be able to use the very latest versions immediately, but if they could provide updates within three to six months of a new package release, users could try new features sooner.

One additional feature that would be helpful is SAML authentication. Many companies now use Azure or AWS; in our case, we use Office 365 for email and authentication. If SAML authentication was available in pfSense, we could have integrated it with Office 365, allowing users to log in directly using their existing credentials.

The tool can integrate with Azure AD internally, but SAML or two-factor authentication, such as SMS, would provide better security. Firewalls are usually kept behind the scenes and not exposed, but this feature would be useful in some cases.

We've offered Netgate pfSense to many clients, managing it for them and migrating them from existing firewalls. They're generally happy with the change. However, some clients were looking for these additional authentication features. While we can integrate with Office 365, a direct connection option would be beneficial.

I have been working with the product for four years. 

I use Netgate pfSense Plus. We mainly chose it for early updates and commercial support, as advertised on their site. I've only used the support once, though. We started with the free version, which worked fine without issues. After three to four months, we upgraded to the Netgate pfSense Plus environment. Since then, it's been very stable. We've never had problems that required rolling back changes after updates. The updates are very stable - we don't have issues when we update the firewall. So overall, it's been quite stable for us.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten. 

My company has five users using the solution in two locations. The solution's documentation shows that it is scalable. 

There is a lot of support material available on the Internet. You need to do some research. In my experience, I've only had to contact Netgate pfSense support once in the last four years, and that was because I messed up the operating system in our virtualized environment. 

We were previously using Cisco ASA 5500. After three years, we needed to upgrade the hardware and the subscription. At that time, we were moving from an on-premise solution to the cloud, so we decided to try Netgate pfSense. Our vendor recommended it. We wanted to get at least six months of experience with it to ensure its features were stable and it could handle higher loads without breaking. That was one of the main reasons we chose the solution.

The solution's deployment is straightforward. The basic setup took us just about two to three hours. However, designing our custom network configuration took a bit longer. Overall, we got the tool up and running in about three to four days in my environment. There were three people involved in the deployment process: myself and two other team members.

Netgate pfSense doesn't require much maintenance on our end. It's pretty smooth. We monitor alerts. When there's a new update, we test it in our staging environment to see if it affects anything. If it's smooth, we upgrade.

The tool has helped us save money. 

The tool is flexible; even the free, open-source version offers many features. From a cost perspective, even the subscription model for commercial support isn't too costly. However, it's important to have someone knowledgeable about Netgate pfSense to take advantage of it. While there are online resources, a professional or someone experienced can get much more out of the solution. I've heard that the IPS/IDS licenses and other features can be costly.

The solution is very cheap. It's so affordable that even students can use it on their laptops. It's a good, cost-effective product.

The solution has a single web interface, which you could consider a container. Within this container, there are multiple interfaces or sections. You must navigate to different settings to manage different aspects of the system.

So, while it's all contained within one web interface, you can't see or manage everything from a single screen.

I recommend the tool to our clients. We help them implement and support it. I rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use it for home solutions and 200+ enterprises. We use it to address routing issues (NATing issues through VPNs).

Our environment consists of many enterprises with many subnets.

pfSense makes everything easier compared to Cisco or Fortinet.

Policy-based firewall rules are the most valuable feature because every other brand it is 200% more complicated to accomplish the same operation.

The flexibility is easy. We can implant in small businesses for less than 500 CAD and in 5k users enterprises. The only part that needs to be improved is the hardware, everything else is out of the box.

I would rate the ease of adding features a ten out of ten. With telecom knowledge, the product is crystal clear easy.

Evaluation and contracting could be improved. 

I have been using pfSense since 2016.

The scalability is good, they should offer filtration or a next-gen firewall.

From my experience, their support is very quick. 

Positive

I haven't evaluated any solutions since 2016. With pfSense you get the bang for your buck. pfSense routing, VPN, policy rules, NAT forwarding, everything is better.

The initial setup is straightforward. It was easy. We have 16 years of experience. I did the deployment, it only required one person. 

It is cheaper than other options. 

I would rate it a 9.5 out of 10. My advice would be to take the time to do an online course if you find using the solution a bit hard. It is worth it.

We use it as a firewall within our public cloud infrastructure. We use it in particular for IPSec, VPN, and Reverse Proxying HTTP Traffic. We have deployed multiple pfSenses and most of them are configured as HA/Failover.

We wanted to secure traffic between our main office and multiple public cloud data centers and providers. We also wanted to have access to our cloud components via VPN.

We have multiple websites that are proxied via HAProxy and secured via Let’s Encrypt TLS Certificates (generated via the ACME Plugin).

We deploy across multiple virtual data centers that are in different physical locations. Multiple teams have their own deployment. One HA / Failover cluster is the entry point to our websites so there are millions of HTTP requests per month. We also have around 20 to 30 users (Dev and Ops) who use the VPN feature. Behind the pfSense firewalls, there are around 100+ servers and no end users.

We replaced a Sophos UTM 9 Failover Cluster with a pfSense Failover Cluster and we can now make config and certificate changes without downtime. Also, the TLS certificates are rotated automatically.

The performance optimization documentation has improved our organization. The base setup is great but with higher bandwidth, it is really hard to find good documentation on how to tweak the setup to get the most out of your connection.

pfSense sort of gives us a single pane of glass management. We use the same product multiple times so we only need to know one product but it also does not offer a single management platform for all deployments. Whether this is good or bad depends on the point of view. On the one hand, we need to manage multiple setups, but on the other hand, we have a clear separation of concerns and risk zones (if the user account on one system is breached not all systems are affected).

It is hard to pinpoint a specific feature that is the most valuable. I think the big community is a major benefit. Most problems we encounter were already encountered and mostly solved by someone else. Most of the components are open-source tools, so the error messages have hits on Google which makes debugging easier.

pfSense has Plugins and is open source so everybody can add features or improve the product. For example, HAProxy, ACME Plugin, Prometheus-node-exporter, Nmap, etc. I see it as a relatively flexible product. If something is not working via the WebUI, SSH or WebKVM is always there.

Most of the time it is very straightforward to use a feature or plugin, the documentation is great and has examples that are very helpful. If something is a bit tricky, pfSense luckily has a big community. 

Performance Optimization Documentation could use improvement. The base setup is great but with higher bandwidth, it is really hard to find good documentation on how to tweak the setup to get the most out of your connection.

We have been using pfSense for eight years. 

pfSense is a very stable solution. In all the years I had around three instabilities.

Two people handle the maintenance of all pfSense Firewalls.

It can be used in small to big deployments. If the bandwidth hits more than 10GBs or 20GBs you need to optimize it to get good results. I would also not recommend it in very big ISP deployments with TBs of traffic.

I have never used the support for any technical issue. The community forums and Google always were enough.

Positive

In one of our virtual data centers, we had a Sophos UTM 9 as failover but it had some very annoying problems (Let’s Encrypt TLS Cert generation or WAF config reloads resulted in a two-minute downtime).

The old installation was straightforward, but the new installer has some bugs and does not really work.

We implemented it ourselves. 

Previous deployments were done by a System Engineer and the current deployments are done by me (DevOps Engineer) and a System Engineer. It was a one-person job.

We have better uptimes and lower support costs in comparison to the Sophos firewall and we are also saving on licensing fees.

The licensing seems fair. We owned the TAC Lite License for some time. The problem was, that the license is bound to a device ID which does not really work well with VMs where this ID changes sometimes.

We use pfSense Community Edition as our firewall within our public cloud so we only pay for the VM and the traffic.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. It is very good but has some fields in which it can improve.

You need to have an interest in the topic and also (like any security product) it needs regular attention. But it is a reliable firewall and the combination of BSD and ZFS makes it pretty solid.

We use pfSense as an edge router for customers. I use pfSense Plus. We're using Netgate boxes preconfigured with pfSense.

PfSense gives our customers high security, and it's easy to implement. Most customers are looking for a VPN, so we set up a static IP that makes the VPN easy. The benefits of pfSense are immediate. It has a few features that prevent data loss, such as backups and creating rules. It does packet inspection to ensure large known malware does not get through to the end users.

It offers features that help us prevent downtime, but that doesn't apply to our customers. It has failover, so if an internet line were to go bad, you could failover to another line. That doesn't apply to our customers because they can't afford a second internet line. 

I appreciate the depth of what you can do with pfSense and the simplicity of the initial setup. One thing we've done is create an image, and when we get a new customer who needs a device, we can put that image on there. The image gets them up to 90 percent of what we need them to have, and we only have to customize the remaining 10 percent. PfSense is incredibly flexible. It's complicated, but it's incredibly flexible.

We do a lot of managed services and are currently trying to get people off of L2TP VPN. Apparently, we can download a mobile config file from a configured NetGate device, and we're primarily Apple. We've experimented with it on a device that's not a production device, and we can't seem to get the phase one IPSec set correctly so that the Apple config will accept it. 

We've tried looking at the documentation but haven't found anything. While it's not the highest priority, it is rather frustrating. We'd like to do this, and the feature is right there, but we can't get it configured. We certainly don't want to try it on a production machine because it will break the current VPN. 

I would like to download the Apple mobile config so that I can tell it to configure my VPN connection to do that. We have some cross-platform things. So there's also a Windows VPN. You can download a script or a PowerShell, put it on a Windows machine, and it can connect to the VPN. It would be nice if I could say I want Mac only, Windows only, or both. I wish it could configure the IPSec phase one and phase two, or at least give me solid instructions on how to configure that.

It doesn't supply out-of-the-box visibility to drive decisions. You get 75 log lines, so if you're trying to troubleshoot something, you have to look at one log and then another. It integrates with SysLog systems, but our customers are not at the level where they want to pay for some third-party SysLog system. Usually, we can get things taken care of fairly quickly.

I would like to have the ability to control all my devices from one place. With Ubiquiti, you can get a controller that allows you to control all of your Wi-Fi devices, switches, and routers. From one area, you can switch to that customer and see what's happening in their environment. That's not part of pfSense. I understand why it's not because pfSense is open source and community supported. That's something that someone in the community needs to pick up and run with. It's not something the pfSense can easily implement. If they could, that'd be great.

I have used pfSense for 12 years.

I give it an eight out of 10. I've never had any lag or downtime.

The higher-end boxes have a lot of scalability. You can run pfSense on a Unix box and add cards or all sorts of things. If you had a powerful Unix box and hot spot-able, there would be a lot of scalability to it. I primarily use their Netgate appliances from the 1100 to 2100 hundred, so the scalability is limited. 

The old 3100 had a lot more scalability than its replacement the 2100. But the next step up now is to the 4100, which gives you an additional preconfigured WAN port that allows you to easily separate networks. It jumps from $400 to $900.

I rate Netgate support eight out of 10. They're great. I called about an issue with a bad box. They answered the phone and I got somebody who was highly familiar with the product. He had me try several troubleshooting things, identified that the box was bad, and got me a replacement. 

Positive

We’ve used SonicWall and switched due to cost. Though SonicWall is easier to manage, the on-going costs are prohibitive.

The deployment difficulty depends on what you need to do. Let's say you get a box and plug it into your network, but you can't get it to work, so you call the folks at pfSense. They will help you configure it so that you can ping a remote device. That's pretty easy. 

I gave one of the pfSense boxes to one of my people who has minimal knowledge about setting up network devices. He could get it to ping in about 25 minutes. Then, I asked him to add a VLAN, and he's still working on that. That's been two and a half months. If someone needs something to put on their network, it's pretty easy, but if you want the full benefit of a firewall, it may take a while. One person is enough to do it. After deployment, you just need to do some periodic firmware updates. 

PfSense's pricing is reasonable. However, support is relatively expensive for smaller customers, and you need to pay per device to get it. So if Customer A is having an issue, I have to get support, and then I have to get support for Customer B, and so on. It would be nice as a managed services provider to get support for my company rather than individual devices.

I would compare the total cost of ownership to SonicWall. We can compare the basic functions of the Netgate 2100, the model we use most, to the SonicWall 3500. They have very similar functionality. The cost of the 3500 was closer to $4,000.

I rate Netgate pfSense eight out of 10. I recommend doing a lot of research or spending the $500 to get the extended support. 

We primarily use the solution as a replacement for commercial firewalls. We use it as an Internet Gateway Firewall product and use the VPN features.

pfSense helped solve the limitations of proprietary software. I find it frustrating when the hardware capabilities of a particular piece of equipment are doled out piecemeal for a fee. For example, when certain features are locked until you pay for them. The proprietary nature and the extra computing power that's used to basically enforce the copyright on some of the competitive products I resent. I like that this has a community option. I'm an open-source advocate. I started using Linux in 1999, and I prefer that developer model.

There are many capabilities within pfSense, that I've never used, and that's true of a lot of products. It's very flexible, and they have plug-ins.  You can add features to pfSense. It is moderately difficult. That said, the web interface is great.

I like that I can use it with OpenVPN. It's not licensed and is not run by some corporation that watches you.

It has an advanced file system so that you can configure it with multiple drives and have redundancy within the router itself. I've never used it as a file server. I've never used it as a data store. It's really more about security and not reliability.

It's keeping the bad guys out and allowing connectivity when you need it.

The configuration could be a little more intuitive. It's a little trickier to set up - things like the OpenVPN - than it should be. However, once you get this configured, it seems solid as a rock, and it just works. 

The solution needs better error messages in the VPN. It's kind of a bear to configure. That could be streamlined or smoothed out. That said, I do not do this 40 hours a week like some people. I wear a lot of different hats. Still, when it comes to configuring, it always seems to be a little more involved. 

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

The solution has been very solid.The BSD file system is a little more fragile than a Linux file system. I've had situations where a power failure causes a hard drive not to get corrupted but to need to run maintenance on it when it reboots. However, that's not a pfSense issue. Overall, it's been great.

I'm not a power user. For me, the capabilities are fine. It runs pretty fast even on modest hardware. 

Technical support was good. It was way better than the twenty-four hours that the contract said. They usually get back to me in a matter of a few minutes. 

They are very good at answering and solving specific problems. If something doesn't work, you can give them access. They can figure it out and make it work. 

I was less satisfied when I tried to ask a question like, "Is this the best way to have this configured?" It's a slippery slope of going beyond the typical tech support and actually getting consulting on it. I understand that maybe that's not their problem. However, it did seem like there's this hard wall where they will answer specific questions, but they are not going to give you general consulting advice about how to use the product. That is a little frustrating. 

Positive

I've used SonicWall and I've used various commercial firewalls, for example, Cisco. However, I haven't evaluated other things in the same category based on open source. There are a lot of them; I haven't looked at anything else, to be honest.

It's easy to get it going as a firewall. It's moderately difficult to get the VPN features running. I was able to deploy it within a couple of days. 

Maintenance is needed for upgrades or renewal of certificates.

I managed the setup myself with the help of the pfSense support staff. 

I use the community version, although there is a paid version as well. I've also downloaded it, registered myself, and paid for it to get support. I'm not sure of the exact features that differ between free and paid. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The only shortcomings are somewhat obscure configuration issues. However, the scope of what they're trying to do is very good. While there could be more polish on some configurations, it's very capable and very flexible. 

If I had to do it over again, I would probably have actually gotten the hardware from NetGate. You're paying for the support, and bundling the hardware and support together might be better. I sense that you'd kick yourself up a notch in terms of the priority that they give you. Not that there's ever been a problem. Getting the hardware directly from pfSense might cut out the middleman and reduce the possibility of issues when something goes south. Other than that, I'm a pretty fairly satisfied customer.

We use it as a firewall. I've got a few deployed at different customer sites. All of them use OpenVPN for VPN software.

We really started out with general-purpose firewalls, and I used a different firewall. I've used SonicWall in the past and one of the other firewalls had a yearly subscription fee if you want to protect from different sorts of security threats. pfSense uses open software, so you don't have to pay a security fee for that.

The dashboard is pretty good. It lets you control different things. It also has widgets, and you're able to control which sockets are open or not, and you're able to have some open software that allows you to do geofencing. You can restrict the ability to access certain countries.

It's been flexible enough for everything that we've needed to do with it. I have a small operation, so we don't have some of the requirements that a larger one would have. 

Since it's open software, there are typically open modules that you can add. The firewall software also has a menu option that allows you to download different new features. For instance, there's a piece of software called Notes that allows you to make some notes, so you can go into your firewall and look up configuration notes that were written there in the past. There's backup software, so there's another piece of software that allows you to back up the configuration to a file or a PC connected to the firewall. If you have a sufficiently bad power outage, you can lose your configuration. However, it has some features that allow you to track suspicious access to a device. You get a record of intrusion. You still need to interpret it yourself. However, you are alerted to potential hacks.

We began to see the value immediately. It made a big made a big difference not to have to pay that annual fee. There was some learning curve involved. I like to learn new things. 

We do not have a single pane of glass management. It would be nice to have. There are some firewalls that let you have cloud-based management like software as a service. pfSense doesn't allow you to have a central place where you can check everything. I have to remote into local networks and then pull up an individual dashboard.

I've been using the solution for three and a half years.

The stability is good. I haven't had any issues with the firewall crashing spontaneously. What I have seen is, if you have a power glitch, it will go up and down. We have battery backup so that those power glitches don't happen. However, if it does, that can damage the memory storage device inside the firewall and then you have to reload it. 

The quality has been very good. If I had paid support, it would be faster. When you get a new firewall, you get 30 days of telephone support for the device while you are initially configuring it. After that, you have email support. You can pay for support every year. However, I work for a lot of non-profits that do not have big budgets. 

Positive

We've had SonicWall or WatchGuard in the past, among others. They had less flexibility and you did have to pay an annual fee.

The initial setup was maybe 50% more difficult than I thought it would be. That said, it wasn't too bad. There are good instructional videos on the internet and the help documentation that Netgate provides is good too. They also have good technical support. The free level of technical support is an email ticket system. If you have a problem, you can raise a ticket, and then it gets solved, maybe not right away, but eventually. It might take a day or two to get solved.

The first time it was deployed, it probably took a day - maybe 12 hours. After that, it takes anywhere from a couple of hours to up to five hours to fully load a firewall with all the different pieces of software I need. 

I handled the deployment myself. 

There is a bit of maintenance needed. I will either go remote to the different firewalls or on-site and update the software. I can download the latest version from Netgate and basically reload it. 

I use the community version of the solution. It is free to use.

I don't consider the cost of how many hours it would take to learn it versus the cost of the annual subscription; however, once I get sufficiently comfortable on many firewalls, that'll average out to zero in terms of cost.

I'm a registered reseller.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. It's a good firewall that operates without you having to pay attention to the costs. 

It's really important to back up your configuration. Sometimes, you do have to reload it. It's more important to document the procedure that you take to load and configure the firewall. If you're used to WatchGuard or SonicWall, then there's more of a cut-and-dried procedure to that. With pfSense, you really have a lot of latitude and a lot of flexibility in how you want to configure it. If you just do the minimal configuration, you probably aren't getting the advantage of all the features you would want to have. That's why it pays to document that.