My use case involved having a firewall from a different vendor, which was taken over and used as a bot in a network. This incident made me reconsider my firewall provider.

I integrated pfSense, and I have not encountered any issues since. Initially, I used it as freeware as a virtual box, and it performed well.

About two and a half years ago, I transitioned to physical boxes. We have more than one. My use case was to connect two offices and create an extended LAN using pfSense for point-to-point connections between the data centers.

I have never had an issue with pfSense, except when attempting to configure it. When left as is, it functions well.

Support is very good.

It is rather flexible.

Having enterprise support was immensely helpful since I have run into problems using a plugin. Without it, I might have needed to purchase a new box.

I do use pfSense Plus. We had downtime before pfSense. We've never gone down using the solution. We haven't had any performance issues.

I like the plugin systems, even though I feel like I'm playing roulette. I'm not sure if it does what I want it to do or if it will break the original capability of pfSense. Plus, having all of these dependencies may be a liability. While I appreciate their availability and wish to develop my own plugins, time constraints hinder that.

Since the language used in the documentation is difficult for a non-English speaker, I find it hard to understand. It assumes they understand the words that are used and sometimes I feel I need to get out a dictionary to get handle on what they are talking about. They need to simplify the language a little bit.

Using a plugin for reverse proxy allows multiple URLs to listen on port 80, rather than a single IP address for multiple servers, however, this requires changing the default port of pfSense. When I changed the default port, I experienced difficulty accessing the device. I thought my password was incorrect, when in fact, the port change was the issue. I had to connect to the physical device using a special cable. While I found this surprising, I am too paranoid to use SSH due to its perceived vulnerability.

We're a security company. We provide solutions to prevent hacking. pfSense is really good at preventing outside access; however, as an attacker, there are endless opportunities to attack. There's no way for me to know who or what pfSense is blocking or preventing. pfSense doesn't tell you any information.

I've been using the solution for two to three years.

I receive popup notifications indicating that we have run out of memory due to some unknown reason, despite using only 20% of the device's memory. I am unsure of the cause. There is nobody that can give me a good answer to this issue. Occasionally, I receive emails from sales about updates, however, sometimes, the device does not detect these updates.

We have not reached the point where it becomes stressed. Our device isn't that big in terms of size since we don't have a lot of big users. No one has complained of buffering or response times. Our internet is likely slower than our pfSense.

I was really happy having enterprise support when issues arose. Without this support, I probably would have bought a new box.

We have premium support. It helps me as I didn't feel comfortable with all of the responsibility. It's helped us with tech IDs and getting into the system when there have been issues.

Management provides a budget for purchases. Initially, I bought a product based on appealing flyers and sales promises. However, after purchase, I realized it was not as secure as anticipated. I liked that pfSense started off as partially open-source. We trusted the technology.

We don't do cloud services. We have an on-premies setup and wanted to use pfSense in our on-premises cloud. It works really well and we are very comfortable with it. We do a lot of research with nasty malware and have not seen anything able to hack it yet. We've done so many deployments that we're very comfortable with the setup and capabilities.

You just power it on and follow the Wizard. If somebody has never done any firewalls, they should do what the tech says.

I'm the only person that is allowed to touch it and I'm the only one with access. We have four sites and no issues. We've abused one of the plugins, the pfBlocker, that has a subscription URL that can get malicious actors and help us block their IP. We can update the firewall rules almost in real-time. That's the basic maintenance we do. It's mostly automated.

There are occasional updates, and we get notices. Sometimes, the devices do not see the update, and I get paranoid that it's a phishing attempt. I'm not sure of this is a bug or not.

If instructed by my boss, I can complete tasks within four hours, adhering to pfSense's SLA. I don't mind being challenged.

Monetary concerns are not my focus; I cannot justify saving on the firewall for personal expenses.

I would recommend the solution to other users, including potential government clients. I've invited others to try and hack it, to showcase how robust it is, and no one can. It's impressing people. They're saying, "I need to get one of those."

I would rate the overall product seven out of ten. I'm stressed out by the documentation. I do have an interest in doing a pfSense certification course. The documentation is holding me back from giving me a ten.

We use pfSense as our main router.

We implemented pfSense to address the instability and limited customization options we experienced with our previous router.

pfSense is highly flexible, allowing for creating IPsec tunnels and various other configurations.

Adding features to pfSense is easy.

Since implementing pfSense, our overall stability has improved significantly over the last ten years as we transitioned from Prosumer equipment to a more robust tool. This success has allowed me to implement more pfSense routers in other locations. We saw the benefits of pfSense in less than a couple of weeks. Having that added stability is great.

pfSense Plus provides us with the visibility to make data-driven decisions. We can see historical data and bandwidth utilization, allowing us to make informed decisions about our internet connection based on that information.

The most valuable aspects of pfSense are the stability, hardware compatibility, and low cost.

I want pfSense to add some next-generation firewall features.

The scalability has room for improvement.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years.

I rate the stability of pfSense ten out of ten.

Due to the absence of a single pane of glass management feature, scaling out pfSense becomes quite challenging. I'd rate its scalability a three out of ten, as the process is far from straightforward at present.

The few times we've had to engage support, they have been professional and incredibly knowledgeable. If we encounter someone who doesn't have the answer immediately, they can find it very quickly. In the past, they have even joined meetings with us and a client to work on a problem, providing a lot of insight and assistance throughout the process.

We previously used Prosumer routers, but their capabilities were insufficient for our needs.

Initially, it was a bit complex when I started using the system over ten years ago. pfSense required a deeper understanding than the Prosumer devices I had used before. I had to grasp the ramifications of every action. However, once I overcame that learning curve, it became knowledge I possessed.

It took us about two weeks to implement and learn how to use pfSense. I've noticed that with pfSense, I'm always learning something new. Just because we've used something for a long time doesn't mean we know all of its functionality. For example, I needed to establish an IPsec tunnel for the first time last year. I called in support, and we successfully established the tunnel to another location. There's always something new to learn, whether pfSense adds new features or we encounter a need for functionality we haven't used before.

pfSense Plus is cost-effective for what we're getting. I've been using Netgate hardware for a long time, and including the pfSense Plus license with the hardware offers significant value. Additionally, using pfSense software for free is of great value.

The total cost of ownership is very low. We've used pfSense historically in a simple configuration, and I've been able to train peers on how to use the Netgate hardware and pfSense Plus effectively.

I rate Netgate pfSense seven out of ten only because of the lack of ability to manage all our switching and WAP from one location.

We have three locations, and two to 25 users use a combination of wired and wireless devices and a typical broadband connection.

pfSense requires maintenance when new versions or patches are released. This does not happen often, but it does happen.

I recommend pfSense to others. Once you overcome the learning curve, it becomes almost second nature to use. The cost is also a major factor. Every year or so, I explore alternatives to Netgate hardware, but almost everything I find is subscription-based, like Cisco Meraki or other brands. I'd struggle to justify renewing a router license every 18 months or risk it stopping working. So, using a platform like pfSense without an annual fee is a huge benefit for our budget.

I use pfSense for my home monitoring. It's used to build a subnet in my home environment to separate the IoT and my daily lab.

PfSense can separate the network into subnets, which I can't do with an ordinary home router. It is relatively simple to add a multiple gigabit network port on the home router. For example, I can buy customized hardware with 6x 2.5 GbE. It helps me optimize performance. I use pfSense as my reverse proxy and have a single interface for managing all the SSL certificates using HAProxy.

The best feature of pfSense is that it can be installed on any customized hardware. I don't need to use Netgate hardware. I like the dynamic DNS update and firewall feature. Adding features is easy. If a feature is built-in, I can check it, install the package, and convert it. If it isn't built-in, I can't add it to pfSense.

PfSense's interface could be improved. For example, the menu is ordered alphabetically instead of logically. The reboot button should be located near the shutdown, but it's in alphabetical order. Also, Netgear should create a home license for pfSense Plus for non-commercial use.

I have used pfSense since 2020, so it's been about four years.

I rate pfSense six out of 10 for stability.

I haven't tried to scale pfSense. I only use it locally.

I rate Netgate support five out of 10. They are helpful for basic questions, but if I ask something more complicated, they refuse because I am not a higher tier of support. The response time is acceptable.

I used OpenWrt before pfSense but for a relatively short period. PfSense is more feature-rich than previous solutions.

Deploying pfSense is a bit complicated, but It's nothing I can't handle. It requires some maintenance, such as when they release updates.

PfSense saves me the time I would spend doing things separately. For example, building a VM to set the rear-end policy would take a lot of time.

If it's not the free community edition, pfSense is relatively expensive for home use. It's okay for commercial use. The cost of ownership is low. I can save about a hundred dollars annually.

I rate Netgate pfSense seven out of 10. I recommend pfSense for advanced users. It's a good solution if you want to learn more about networking in a company environment/.

The solution's most valuable features are high availability and the VPN options. Netgate pfSense has the ability to support multiple interfaces and spin up virtual IPs.

What drew me to Netgate pfSense from the beginning is that it's free, open-source software. I wanted the solution for additional control over firewall routing, and there wasn't really anything else on the market that would do that.

Netgate pfSense is very flexible. I like that it can run on enterprise bare metal and Raspberry Pi. Obviously, Netgate has a lot of appliances ranging from extremely small to extremely large.

pfSense Plus is extremely low-cost. Its comparative features include high availability, the ability to tune system variables, and support for hundreds of interfaces.

It would be great for the solution to have better logs. Some of the solution's graphs that show visibility on system performance or session count lack resolution. For example, you may only be able to see the session count by day if you want to look back more than a month.

In contrast, we would want to see the session count fluctuate by an hour or five-minute increments. It would be helpful to be able to query larger data sets, even if you had to break them up into smaller subsets.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for seven years.

The solution's scalability is very poor past 5,000 clients and impossible past 10,000 clients.

I had a very poor experience with the solution's technical support.

I switched from Netgate pfSense to Fortinet. Scalability and high availability are significantly better with Fortinet. It took me about 10 to 15 hours to set up high availability in Netgate pfSense just because of the way it works with virtual IPs and CARP.

On the other hand, it takes about 15 minutes with Fortinet. It's just a completely different experience. Also, the performance availability for appliances is a thousand times better with some of the higher-end offerings at Fortinet versus the highest-end offerings that Netgate has.

The solution's initial setup is difficult because of the extensive setup it takes to achieve high availability.

In our case, it took us around 40 hours to fully deploy the solution from start to finish.

I think Netgate pfSense's TAC or support is a little expensive, considering how inexpensive everything else is. Netgate's most expensive appliance costs around $5,000. However, an annual subscription to TAC costs around $1,000, which is roughly 20% of what you pay for the hardware. It seems a little excessive.

I would say it's pretty easy to add and configure features to Netgate pfSense. However, if you add features that Netgate does not officially support, you can run into issues with your support contracts. It's easy to add features, but it's extremely difficult to support something that is not an official Netgate plug-in.

We saw the benefits of Netgate pfSense pretty immediately after deploying it. We have been scaling, though. As we got to a very large deployment across different sites, we started to see additional problems, but then we also saw additional value added. Initially, there's a lot of value, which increases over time, but eventually, you hit a wall where it's just not that valuable.

On the surface, it looks like pfSense Plus provides visibility that enables data-driven decisions. Unfortunately, after many back-and-forths with support, they say that it looks like the firewall has done something, but there's nothing in the log. There's no data to support their theories. On the surface, it looks like it should, but we found in practice that it was missing a lot of data that would help us make decisions that we needed to make.

The solution's total cost of ownership is good for what it is. I don't think I would ever use it in an enterprise environment anymore. As a value proposition, it's really good for a small business application or a company with multiple sites that you need to be able to interconnect.

You can set up an entire ecosystem for $ 5,000 to $ 6,000 with top-of-the-line hardware from Netgate. Unfortunately, with our user account, throughput, and bandwidth, we've just outgrown it and can't use it anymore.

We've bought appliances for Netgate pfSense's deployment, and we've also deployed the solution on separate machines. Most recently, we used the appliances.

Technically, we never got Netgate pfSense to a good solid state. For the four to six months we had it in production, it was constantly down and needed at least 20 hours of maintenance a week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We've used pfSense for around five years.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We use pfSense as a small business firewall and as a VPN gateway.

PfSense provides us with a cost-effective but reliable network appliance. We have a standard networking device that lower-end help desk people can use effectively. It's less complicated. We moved from another platform that although the hardware was reliable, the software wasn't particularly reliable, and it was difficult to use.

It helps our operations because it's a standard platform anyone on our help desk can use. Every site will be pretty much the same. Once cloud management comes out, it'll be even better.

PfSense is fairly simple to configure and has a good administration interface. It's built on pfSense, so I know it'll be reliable. It is quite flexible, and adding and configuring features is pretty easy. There's a lot of support for add-ons, and we can do a lot of stuff with it, so it suits our needs perfectly.

It secures against data loss pretty well. Plus only has a few additional features over the Community Edition. We mainly use Plus because it comes with the Netgate hardware.

The only feature I want to add is cloud management. I'll be an early adopter of that one. We're ready for that feature, and it's one of the few missing things, so that'll be excellent when it comes.

Another thing that's primarily an issue for us is that Netgate may soon stop production of the 1100. That's what we use for our telephony gateway. It doesn't need to be high performance, but it does need to be low cost. If they stop it and make the 2100 the lowest, that will be problematic for us. We will need to start using something else because it will become too expensive for our purposes.

Effectively, we are using it as just a VPN gateway, and 1100s are great for that. What's annoying is that we cannot buy the 1100s directly because we're not a partner, and it isn't approved for connection to Australia, so we need to buy it through a company that went out and got it approved. We lose a bit of margin doing it that way. We can buy 2100s and above directly, but we must go through a reseller to get 1100s.

I have used pfSense for two years.

I rate pfSense nine out of 10 for stability.

Netgate pfSense is scalable.

I rate Netgate support seven out of 10.

We have used some other hardware, but the software was a dog. It's pretty difficult. We've also used some UniFi solutions, which are good, but they haven't sorted out the VPN component, so we'll continue using Netgate. Once they work out the kinks in their software, they'll possibly have a compelling solution.

However, if Netgate stops selling the 1100, that could be quite problematic for us, and we'll probably go with Ubiquiti because it's too expensive to use 2100s for VPN appliances.

PfSense is straightforward to deploy once you know what to do. It's a one-person job and takes a couple of hours. After deployment, it requires upgrades, but that's it.

The total cost of ownership is good because you buy it upfront and don't need to pay a subscription fee. We've spent a bit more, but we pass that along to the customer. In the end, everyone wins because they get a reliable solution, and we get something much easier to manage.

I rate pfSense five out of five for pricing. It's fairly priced. We wouldn't buy it if it weren't. There are cheaper firewall options, but they aren't as reliable and easy to manage. Of course, there are also more expensive ones.

No ongoing subscription fee is nice because many of them are small businesses that don't want to pay for an ongoing subscription. It's always being updated, so that's good from a security perspective.

I rate Netgate pfSense seven out of 10. I would recommend it to others.

My company uses Netgate pfSense firewall routers for some clients, but I choose the device based on their needs. For locations like restaurants that require constant internet, I use a different device with cellular failover built-in. The cost-effective Netgate pfSense is a good option in simpler locations like doctors' offices. I can leverage Netgate's ability to handle multiple ISPs for clients with large internet demands. Ultimately, the choice depends on the client's budget and specific requirements.

In my role, I decide what our clients should implement for their network security. I want to create a secure environment by separating the business network from the Wi-Fi and phone networks. To achieve this separation, pfSense uses different subnets to effectively block any incoming traffic attempting unauthorized access to the network.

pfSense is highly configurable, offering flexibility to tailor its features and functionality to each client's network needs.

pfSense offers a wide range of plugins and add-ons, making initial configuration straightforward. However, since I primarily rely on endpoint security products installed on clients' workstations for their overall protection, my pfSense setup focuses on basic functionality. This includes configuring the firewall for my in-house network and leveraging its ability to handle multiple WAN connections. Ultimately, pfSense's affordability and ease of use make it a great choice for me as a secure and customizable router/firewall solution.

Network segmentation offers the biggest benefit for my clients. By creating separate Wi-Fi, phone systems, and business network segments, I can isolate any security breaches and prevent them from spreading throughout the entire network. As the decision-maker, I prioritize client security without needing them to understand the technical details. My focus is ensuring their networks are secure.

I have never had any downtime using pfSense Plus.

The most valuable features of pfSense are its ability to segment networks, create different subnets, create different VLANs, and use the VPN, as well as its affordability.

pfSense lacks a centralized web dashboard for viewing all my clients' pfSense dashboards. A single pane of glass for both web access and management would be a game-changer. This missing interface is my biggest frustration with pfSense, and improvement is sorely needed. I have clients all over the United States and would deploy many more pfSense firewalls if it had a centralized web dashboard.

I started installing Netgate pfSense for clients almost three years ago.

I would rate the stability of Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

We've worked with almost every firewall: SonicWall, Cradlepoint, Ubiquiti, Fortinet, and UniFi devices. You get into the licensing of some of those with SonicWall and Fortinet, and it's just not the product that I like to sell to my clients. I'm always client-friendly. I want to find the most affordable product for them that does the best job. NetGate pfSense is the right one for some but not for others.

The deployment is simple. We preconfigure the device in the shop and then take it out and hook it up in less than one hour.

We have three people total who deploy the firewalls, including myself.

Netgate pfSense is a set-and-forget product other than deploying and periodically updating the firmware. pfSense has been solid for me.

Unlike many firewalls that require annual licensing fees, making them expensive for small businesses, pfSense is an affordable option.

I would rate Netgate pfSense seven out of ten. The only area of improvement is the web dashboard, which is currently lacking in pfSense.

I use other products to control data security. Most of my clients don't have an in-house server. I work with small businesses, and that's why the Netgate pfSense device works well. For my larger clients, we go to the cloud for data storage and data security with redundancy. So, I don't use pfSense for data security at all.

pfSense is a good value for some clients; it's client-specific. It depends upon other things we are deploying there, such as what kind of Wi-Fi network we use. If we are adding a VoIP phone system. It just depends on what the client's needs are, but It is the right device for the right client.

A lot of our clients are small businesses. I've got one fairly large business. It is a restaurant group nationwide with 700 employees, but its main office has maybe 30 to 50 employees. So, that's probably my largest deployment of the Netgate device.

The only maintenance required for the pfSense firewalls is applying the occasional firmware updates.

Some MSPs are more focused on making money. I'm not. I'm focused on the right fit for the client, and the money takes care of itself. pfSense is a great device. I'm not focused on what will make me money. I'm focused on what is best for the client. In many decisions, the Netgate pfSense is the right decision for that client.

I use pfSense for various reasons, including implementing IPsec technology due to having limited branches. I use a VPN for secure connections, control the Internet or network flow, employ it as an NTP server, facilitate conference calls, and set up VLANs. I use it to run a proxy server.

I use the free version of Netgate pfSense software. I installed it on my servers with mini network cards, allowing me to create mini gateways and implement different plans.

The Netgate forums and community don’t provide extensive discussions and topics related to every pfSense service.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for five years. We are using the V23.09 of the solution.

Everything is very smooth, with a user-friendly interface. You can use the user interface or CLI as a command.

We have 250 employees using this solution.

We have Git Community forums with a million topics about all issues regarding Netgate pfSense. We can save this information to address various concerns.

I have several reasons for choosing Netgate pfSense. Firstly, it serves my purposes effectively and is entirely free. Secondly, when I search on Google or inquire about past experiences with firewall workloads, its reliability and cost-effectiveness stand out.

The initial setup is too easy.

The product is free of cost.

I recommend using Postgres. However, if you need a firewall without additional tools and prefer a pool of well-established services, pfSense offers suitable features."

Other solutions like Postgres, Sophos, and Palo Alto are in the market. We've used firewalls for a long time, but in the last three years, I worked with pfSense, and it's efficient for all devices.

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

I install Netgate pfSense in various locations. It is also used for monitoring traffic and acting as a proxy.

I handle the scanning for the finance department. I recently encountered an issue with our company bills. I resolved the matter, cleared the bill, and received calls regarding it using pfSense.

The user interface is extremely user-friendly, which is why we use it across various sites. Our IT representatives at the plants find it easy to use and manage because of its straightforward interface.

They rely on third-party tools, unlike Fortinet, for example, which has its own tools. In comparison, we also use third-party tools on pfSense. For example, we had a situation where we needed a tool to identify authorized users, and when I searched for a solution, I found a third-party tool. However, using such tools may come with additional costs.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for around one year.

If I think about pfSense, I would rate the stability around six. There have been some issues with stability, causing occasional downtime. I haven't extensively worked with pfSense in the last year, so my experience is limited.

The scalability of pfSense is excellent, and it's easy to expand. Currently, we have around 200-plus users at our head office using pfSense. I would rate it 7 out of 10.

I haven't contacted Netgate technical support, so I can't provide feedback on that aspect.

Comparing pfSense with other vendors, I appreciate Fortinet for its all-in-one device with ALi involvement. However, for a country like Pakistan with limited resources, pfSense is suitable for small offices due to its cost-effectiveness.

Installation is straightforward, especially for IT professionals. During the installation process, you are prompted to input the brand of the internet and LAN cables. If you're unsure, you can simply connect the cables – one for the internet and one for LAN – and proceed. You can choose to use either one or two cards based on your preference.

Regarding maintenance and technical support, we have a team of around 14 technical staff who handle phone calls and work on maintenance when required.

On a scale of one to ten for pfSense overall, I would rate it a seven. In comparison with other top devices like Fortinet and UDMP, pfSense stands equal in my opinion.