We currently use pfSense firewalls at our branch offices and central server locations. I have implemented TAC enterprise support on three of these firewalls, with the installation of the third scheduled for this weekend. Our network infrastructure relies on VPN tunnels between sites, and I have successfully deployed an always-on OpenVPN solution that significantly outperforms our previous SonicWall VPN system.

Installing packages on pfSense is straightforward, although the quality of package documentation varies. While I understand this isn't Netgate's responsibility, the installation and configuration process for these packages is remarkably user-friendly, relying almost entirely on the GUI. In my experience, I've rarely needed to resort to the command line, but I'm certainly not averse to it when necessary.

I immediately recognized the advantages of pfSense. Its ability to support custom hardware installations allows me to tailor solutions to the specific needs of each branch location. While I've had excellent results with Netgate's pre-built hardware, the option to construct higher-specification systems myself, all while maintaining support, is incredibly valuable. The difference compared to our outdated SonicWall is night and day. I previously built a pfSense firewall on a Dell server for a business handling high traffic volumes, and its performance was exceptional.

pfSense helps me prevent data loss by utilizing firewall aliases and other DNS-based filtration methods to block access to shadow IT and third-party cloud data transfer sites, providing some control over data movement.

While pfSense doesn't offer a centralized overview of multiple firewalls, it provides extensive customization options for each firewall's homepage. This allows for detailed monitoring of VPN tunnels, interfaces, and other components. I appreciate the ability to add, remove, and customize widgets on the homepage for tailored information display.

Helps minimize downtime. I have set up the high availability with one location, which works flawlessly.

Provides visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions about network capacity, including throughput and the ability to handle traffic.

pfSense has significantly improved our performance by optimizing our always-on VPN. The recent release of the OpenVPN data channel offload feature, which was quickly adopted and supported by Netgate pfSense, has revolutionized our Windows laptop VPN solution. This new feature is nearly ten times faster than the previous OpenVPN without data channel offload, and its thorough documentation encouraged us to implement our always-on VPN ahead of schedule.

pfSense's greatest strength lies in its customizable package installation, detailed logging capabilities, and ability to manage log history, including sending it to Vault Logs via Syslog. OpenVPN support is exceptional. When I inquired about setting up an always-on VPN, the engineer swiftly and fully understood my needs and provided expert guidance. Netgate support's in-depth knowledge of included features is truly impressive.

I would like clear guidance on supported network interface cards, including detailed performance metrics for various models. While I understand the focus on selling appliances, more comprehensive documentation for those building their own systems would be beneficial. Specific throughput numbers and other statistics for Intel, Broadcom, Mellanox, and other cards are needed. Additionally, reinstating the ability to visualize long-term RRD data through built-in graphs would be valuable, as the current live traffic display offers limited insights.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years.

I have not experienced any crashes in the production systems. The only crashes I've encountered have been while running unstable development builds, which is expected. However, excluding power outages, pfSense itself has been one hundred percent reliable in my experience.

If you invest in hardware capable of handling increased bandwidth, performance remains unaffected. We haven't observed any spikes in CPU utilization or memory usage. Even with a jump from a 50 megabit to a 500 megabit internet connection and approximately 65 active VPN clients, our firewall operates smoothly without any strain. Our small businesses handle the load effortlessly.

I have exceptionally high praise for the Netgate technical support team. In the three or four times I've called support, I've always reached an engineer within 20 minutes, which was the longest wait time. Every time, they've quickly addressed the issue once verifying firewall support. Their knowledge and willingness to assist are impressive.

I have experience with FortiGate, Dell, SonicWall, Cisco, and numerous consumer-level firewalls. While I am not the most seasoned network engineer, I have worked in the field for a considerable time, encountering a variety of solutions. Among these, pfSense stands out as exceptionally customizable and intuitive. Given the inherent complexity of networking, pfSense has made the subject as accessible as possible.

Deploying a pfSense box is straightforward when I'm physically present. Remotely guiding someone unfamiliar with operating system deployment presents more challenges. However, on-site deployment is remarkably easy, even simpler than installing a Linux server.

Deploying a Netgate pfSense appliance is straightforward, even for network engineers without experience with the platform. The setup wizard is intuitive, requiring minimal networking knowledge. Subsequently, the configuration interface is user-friendly, allowing those with moderate networking experience to navigate and manage settings efficiently. Building a custom solution would depend on hardware expertise and operating system deployment skills, but utilizing Netgate appliances is notably easier.

The Netgate appliance I recently purchased took less than an hour to install, with most of that time spent gathering necessary information from the internet provider.

pfSense pricing is reasonable. Whether purchasing appliances or support, I hope they're charging enough to sustain their exceptional support services. Whether you opt for a bundled appliance and support or standalone support for a custom-built device, the pricing remains impressively fair.

When considering the total cost of ownership, pfSense is a compelling choice for a solution that incorporates firewall, VPN, and router functionality. Initially, I explored purchasing the OpenVPN access server, which would have required a virtual machine due to the lack of a dedicated physical server. However, integrating the VPN endpoint into the firewall aligns better with our design goals. It eliminates the need for a separate VPN appliance, resulting in significant cost savings and improved performance. Testing pfSense with OpenVPN in a virtual environment confirmed that it operates more efficiently on bare metal hardware. Moreover, the licensing cost for the OpenVPN access server would have been comparable to the support fees for pfSense.

The TAC enterprise support is $800 a year per firewall.

I would rate Netgate pfSense ten out of ten. If I could choose a product that was among the least frustrating and nearly flawless I've used, pfSense would likely be at the top of my list.

In addition to initial configuration tasks like routing and applying patches, minimal maintenance is required. Once the interfaces are set up, we configure firewall rules and are ready to go. Patching will be necessary for all platforms, but no specific requirements exist beyond standard practices.

I use Netgate pfSense as my office firewall.

I implemented pfSense as a firewall, VPN, and content filtering solution using pfBlocker and configured it to verify HAProxy certificates.

Most of our pfSense deployments are on existing machines with a small amount in the cloud.

pfSense offers excellent flexibility and works well with both physical appliances and virtual machines.

The ease of adding features to pfSense and configuring them depends mainly on the user's experience. I find it extremely easy.

Firewalls and Network Address Translation offer immediate benefits once configured, as they are foundational security measures. Other features, however, require more extensive configuration and testing before their advantages become apparent.

Compared to other firewall solutions, pfSense's interface is user-friendly and straightforward.

pfSense allows us to configure multiple internet connections and firewall rules to minimize downtime.

It provides visibility into our network by capturing and delivering log data, such as Syslog, firewall logs, and other relevant information. This enables us to make informed decisions based on data analysis.

pfSense can help optimize network performance. When using appliances, we can install more than ten gigabit network interface cards and add more as needed, depending on the hardware capabilities. Typically, new appliances come equipped with ten-gigabit network adapters or ports. We can significantly enhance network and server communication speeds by fully utilizing these ten-gigabit connections.

The most valuable features of pfSense are the pfBlocker, HAProxy, NAT, and VPN.

I am unsure if it's feasible, but I have previously utilized a web VPN interface with Cisco Firewalls that allows VPN connections through a website, eliminating the installation of VPN software. Such a feature would be a valuable addition to pfSense. Additionally, an easy method to monitor pfSense within other monitoring software would be beneficial.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years.

We have encountered only minor and infrequent stability issues.

Netgate pfSense is highly scalable.

The quality of the technical support is good, but if we cause an issue, we have to pay for the support hours.

I have previously used WatchGuard Firebox and OPNsense, but I prefer pfSense for its excellent usability within my company. Other firewalls like WatchGuard and OPNsense are often retained due to customer preference or specific requirements, but most of my deployments utilize Netgate's pfSense.

Deploying a single pfSense box is relatively straightforward. However, the process can become more complex if outdated hardware is used and network cables must be reconfigured. Deployments using Netgate appliances tend to be more straightforward.

We can have the Web GUI up and running in under 30 minutes, and a complete deployment can last up to four hours. One person is required for each deployment.

The pricing is reasonable.

Netgate pfSense offers effective total cost of ownership by combining firewall, VPN, and router functionalities into a single solution.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

pfSense does not have any built-in features specifically designed to prevent data loss. Instead, we must configure various functions to indirectly protect against data loss, primarily as a preventative measure against unauthorized access to our servers and equipment.

I use both the paid and community versions of pfSense. Most of my appliances use the paid version. In the cloud, some virtual machines come with the free community version.

Maintenance is required to open ports and create VPN users.

I use the solution in my home network as the main firewall before all data heads out to the internet. I use it for DNS resolution as well.

I noticed the benefits of pfSense immediately after deployment. I was able to take complete control of my security to my house, and it gave me all the things that I needed in order to secure my home network.

The GUI and the user interface have been very clean, understandable, and feature-rich across the board.

The flexibility of pfSense is great.

It is very easy to add features.

There are features that help to prevent data loss. The rules engine of pfSense, a traditional firewall rule structure, has always been the same.

There's definitely a single pane of glass. There's definitely a lot there in front of you.

pfSense provides visibility that enables users to make data-driven decisions. I'd rate the capabilities seven out of ten.

Sometimes it's a bit of a challenge to know how to do something when you want to do something, for instance, setting up a point to point VPN.

Configuration is sometimes a challenge just due to a lack of knowledge on my side. I find that if I don't set up the rules correctly, and this goes to lack of knowledge of being an expert in the firewall space, it's a bit of a challenge sometimes in setting that up.

I would ask them to update it to a more modern interface, as it does look a little tired compared to GUIs today. However, the features are there. A redesign would be greatly appreciated, just from a human engineering aspect.

It might be easier if they separated things out a little bit more instead of putting all the aspects of what pfSense can do for you in a single menu. For instance, they have services, and they have all the services that you could have on your system. It's a lot.

Sometimes I find it difficult to find the data visibility that I would need in the interface to then go make a data-driven decision.

pfSense helps optimize performance. From a performance standpoint, setting up firewall rules does a great job of laying out exactly what those rules are. The layout of the firewall rules makes it easy to create a secure environment on my home network, albeit not very big. However, all the features are within the firewall, and I can create individual rules and organize the rules.

I've used the solution for six years.

I have never experienced downtime from my pfSense device. I'd rate stability ten out of ten.

The scalability is very good. I'd rate it a ten out of ten.

I contacted technical support when there was a major upgrade a few years back, and I needed some assistance.

The quality was perfect. They were fast and very helpful. Even though I wasn't a paying customer for support, they still gave me great guidance and helped me focus on the issues at hand.

I've always had my service provider, Verizon, with their main router, and that router usually has a firewall built into it. I've never used anybody else besides pfSense outside of that.

The initial setup is straightforward. I've done it for my son at college in a matter of two hours, from unboxing to operation. It's easy to deploy a box. I can deploy it by myself.

It does not require any maintenance.

The ROI and the TCO are significant. You get a lot of features under one product. However, I don't use it as a router. I only use it for firewall and VPN capabilities and DNS.

The pricing and licensing are spot on. It's well below the industry average.

I did not look into other options. I knew of pfSense as being a leader in the industry, and that it is utilized by major corporations in large environments. To that end, I assumed it wouldn't hurt for me to have familiarity with the product and use it at home.

I'm an end-user.

I use the Plus version of pfSense. However, I do not pay for support.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a firewall and for managing traffic.

The interface and the integrated services are very useful.

pfSense offers very good flexibility. There are good plugins you can integrate into the software. We can use it for a firewall and to monitor internal traffic. We can do many things.

It's not very difficult to integrate and configure features. At the install level, using the wizard is very simple. As a firewall, it's easy. You can watch usage and target effectively. If I have difficulties or questions or I need to understand how something works, there are videos and tutorials.

We noticed the benefits of using pfSense pretty immediately. We could see it on the graphs that help us analyze the traffic.

We're able to leverage the single pane of glass interface. We can monitor everything from it from traffic to the state of the machine to memory usage and CPU. It provides good visibility so that we can make data-driven decisions. The visibility we get helps with availability.

Performance has been optimized under pfSense. We can filter traffic and limit internet use as needed. With it, we can control throughput.

The first time we deployed it, it was kind of tricky. There were many configurations. You need to first configure the alias, then you have all the IPs ordered correctly, and you can start to manage the VLANs. It would be ideal if we could implement in an easier and efficient way.

One time, we tried to configure a wireless AP to the firewall and that was tricky. Understanding the interface was hard. It could be easier.

The displays of all the plugins could have a better layout. You have to search through all of them to find what you need. They need a search button.

I've used the solution for one year.

We haven't had any issues with stability.

We haven't tried to scale the solution.

We haven't contacted technical support.

Previously, we used a simple firewall called Linksys, among others. It was not very useful for analyzing traffic. pfSense is more granular in terms of firewall rules.

The initial setup was straightforward, and there are a lot of tutorials online. You can just follow instructions. It's not too hard. The setup was fast. It took maybe half an hour.

There might be a bit of maintenance needed. We check from the main page to check it for CPU or disk failures. there might be some updates. That's it. Sometimes I go on Reddit and check to see if I should do the update or not. I remember once I read that someone suggested that we do not update and to wait for an update in a few weeks.

We managed the initial setup ourselves.

The total cost of ownership is good. We don't have too many pfSense subscriptions across our network. However, it's pretty cheap compared to other firewall subscriptions. Plus, the pricing is inclusive.

The pricing is good for us. It's not too expensive considering all of the features on offer. It's about $1700 a year. It could always be cheaper, however, for the most part, it's good.

We use the Plus version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'd advise users to always follow tutorials which can be found online. Be prepared. That said, the interface is not overly difficult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The stability is rock solid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is very little maintenance outside of updating the software.

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

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

The licensing is fair.

I'm a pfSense customer.

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

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

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

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

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

There are features to help prevent data loss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've used the solution for five years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We did the implementation all by ourselves in-house.

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

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

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

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

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

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

We deploy the pfSense firewall to our customers' networks.

The solution provides customers with reliability and additional security.

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

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

We immediately witnessed the benefits of pfSense.

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

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

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

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

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

I've used the solution for two years.

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

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

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

We've never used any alternative to pfSense.

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

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

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

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

The pricing is excellent.

We're an end-user.

We use the pfSense Plus version.

I'd rate pfSense nine out of ten.

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

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

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

Netgate pfSense is an extremely flexible solution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been using Netgate pfSense for two years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

One person is enough to deploy pfSense.

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

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

I would rate Netgate pfSense eight out of ten.

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

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

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