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 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.

The benefits I have seen in my organization from the use of Netgate pfSense rewards around the fact of how quickly we can implement changes that are needed with the tool are definitely one of the main things. Overall, we have experienced less downtime with the tool. In my organization, we have had downtime with Cisco. Overall, we have noticed some performance increases as well with the use of Netgate pfSense.

The solution's most valuable feature is that I really like the third-party add-ons, as they give the firewall a ton of flexibility and extra functionalities.

My organization plans to solve costs-related problems by using Netgate pfSense. We were using Cisco's firewall products, and the license and hardware costs were just too high. With Netgate pfSense, I think we can get a full firewall tool with support and no need for licensing for under 5,000 USD, saving a ton of money.

There were no specific security issues or challenges I was trying to address using Netgate pfSense.

In terms of the overall flexibility offered by the product, I would say that it is very easy to implement, make changes, and adapt to different challenges that we may have with it. It offers a lot of different options, including VPN options for site-to-site client VPNs. Overall, it is a great tool. It is a highly adaptable solution that is, most importantly, very easy to implement.

It is extremely easy to add features to Netgate pfSense and configure them. If you are talking about third-party stuff, it is something that is within the firewall itself. You can go into the Package Manager and install it.

From a configuration point of view, it is extremely easy to use the tool. With third-party stuff, it can be a pain, but overall, it is extremely easy to manage Netgate pfSense since it is mainly a GUI-driven tool. It is super easy to configure overall.

If I assess the solution for helping our organization prevent data loss, I think it has been great for us. Everything has room for improvement, but it has been great right now.

Netgate pfSense provides our organization with a single pane of glass management. The tool offers great flexibility and is awesome. In our organization, we haven't had any issues with it. It just makes changes that need to be done extremely quickly and efficiently by the end of the day.

I have worked with Netgate pfSense Plus. I buy the hardware from Netgate, and it comes with pfSense Plus.

Netgate pfSense Plus provides 100 percent features that help minimize downtime. In extreme situations, implementing connections that were super helpful in the past and just the ease of deployment, the product offers is helpful since even if something happens to the firewall itself, I can have a virtualized firewall doing the same thing within less than an hour. It can help with that downtime. I know that Netgate pfSense is extremely reliable and a great tool.

Netgate pfSense provides 100 percent visibility, enabling my organization to make data-driven decisions. Netgate pfSense is very much configurable. It gives you 100 percent of everything you need to make decisions. It gives you details of all kinds of different graphs, traffic, and firewall rules, along with the things that you definitely need in the form of the data that you need to be able to just make quick data-driven decisions.

Netgate pfSense visibility helps me optimize performance. The data is just so easily accessible that you can make decisions very quickly. It also helps improve performance. In our organization, we have noticed a very noticeable performance increase since we shifted from the old firewall from Cisco to Netgate pfSense.

If I were to assess the total cost of ownership of Netgate pfSense, I would say it is extremely low and affordable. I think it is a really very simple and extremely budget-friendly tool.

In our organization, we have had such a good experience with Netgate pfSense over the last four years. In terms of improvements, I have not really thought much, to be quite honest. Maybe faster releases for the software or the firewall itself can be areas where improvements are possible. The tool is just a little bit slow to release patches, so it is probably one of the things where the tool can improve. In general, the tool is not bad at all at the end of the day.

Speaking about whether any enhancements are required in the tool, I would say that the tool has everything that we need for our usage. We have an extremely complex environment, the most complex of which is how we use Netgate's BGP to connect to our ISP. Netgate pfSense is extremely feature-rich for our specific use scenarios, and we have not encountered any shortcomings in the solution.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for around four years. The box itself says Netgate pfSense XG-1540. I don't remember the software version we are using right now, but all I know is that I keep it up to date. In my organization, it will be the latest version of the product.

I have not faced any issues with the stability of the product. I have one firewall in a very bad physical environment. It was very dusty, but it has been 100 percent reliable.

It is an extremely scalable solution.

In our school, we have close to 1,800 students and 210 teaching staff overall. With administrative staff, I think there are about 50 people.

I have the tool in different locations and on different campuses.

If I can call someone from the product's technical support team, l can have a technical person on the phone with me in less than five minutes. If you have any questions for them, they will come and try to give you the answer as quickly as they can, and if they don't have a reply, they will reply to you later via email. For the amount that it costs per year, the level of service that you get is unbeatable, honestly. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

The product's initial setup phase was extremely straightforward.

When we deployed the product for the first time, we went through its documentation and how to do things. Otherwise, the strategy is usually based on the fact that we have four campuses, and they run in a similar manner. At least for us, we have a master configuration sort of thing, which we can kind of load into Netgate pfSense and make the small changes that we need, like VLAN changes and small things that apply to the location that the device will be deployed to, and it takes less than probably an hour or two to kind of have a firewall deployed working with the bare minimum, which is extremely fast compared to what it takes with Cisco.

In terms of maintenance, it has been pretty much like we do the setup and then forget it. The firmware updates, or physical maintenance, like cleaning the device, are there. From a greater overview, it is just kind of a set-it-up-and-forget kind of solution for us.

The product's deployment was done in-house, and it involved just me. The enterprise-level support from Netgate helped my organization a lot, especially during the first two deployments, but after that, it was easy.

Personally, I do not have any metrics or data points associated with the ROI that I can share with anyone. My CFO is the person who has information related to ROI.

In our organization, the whole point of moving to Netgate pfSense was that we wanted something that wasn't hard to use or where the licensing wasn't so expensive. We looked at different open-source options, but I can't remember their names. We also looked at UniFi's firewall, but Netgate pfSense came on top for us, considering the support provided and the fact that Netgate's team is the main set of people that keep up with pfSense's open-source project. With Netgate, we work directly with people who use Netgate pfSense, and it is great. We did look at other options, one of which was UniFi, but I cannot remember the name of the other alternative to Netgate pfSense. I think it is called OPNsense.

Suppose I compare the other tools I evaluated with Netgate pfSense, and I feel that the pros of pfSense revolve around the area associated with the product's cost in terms of hardware requirements and licensing. There are no existing costs for the licensing or the hardware. You can deal with the licensing part yourself and get it at a cheap rate from elsewhere or buy it from Netgate's boxes directly from the solution company. Another pro would be the ease of management the tool offers since it is possible to have everything that you need in the GUI, which is a little bit controversial because a lot of people like CLI, but sometimes you need to get something quickly without having to have hundreds of different things.

I haven't come across any cons in the product since most of our company's scenarios are simple and small since we are just a school compared to what other big companies have. Everything that Cisco's firewall was doing for us, Netgate pfSense's firewall does for us for a fraction of the cost and even offers a better performance. I would not know the tool's cons since I do not have anything on my mind right now.

I do not use Negate pfSense Plus on Amazon EC2 VMs. In our organization, we are using Negate pfSense Plus on Netgate's hardware. We use Netgate pfSense XG-1540.

To others who plan to use the solution, I would say that the support offered by the product is 100 percent worth it. The enterprise support is also extremely worth it. In a general sense, if people don't know much about implementation, they just need to read the documentation because many things, like the GUI part, could throw some people off. If you come from a CLI-based tool, the GUI aspect can throw you off, and I know it since it threw me off a little bit initially, but we were able to get through the implementation phase very thoroughly as the tool offers great documentation. By thoroughly going through the documentation, you will have a fairly easy time configuring the tool very methodologically. I really don't think I would recommend anything else apart from the fact that others need to read the documentation and take their time.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

It's a straight-up front edge router used in various scenarios for front-ending multiple websites and multiple web applications for various marketing scenarios which require certain back-end firewalling that you would need to utilize. We found that it works much better than others. It's not like the Ciscos, which, at the time, were incredibly expensive and difficult to work with unless you had a CCNA who was programming it for you.

I was looking for routers that were capable of doing multiple firewalling, which it does. We wanted it for setting up demilitarized zones and setting up some failover for WAN for the internet. We looked at that, and we played around a little bit with Untangle. pfSense was just far easier to get configured and working, and there were no hidden costs or fees involved, which made it very nice to use.

They have a whole section of package management that you can add stuff to. We use pfSense to do a little bit more than what we would or what I would normally do today in a medium to large enterprise.

The flexibility of pfSense is fantastic. You can use it in a number of situations. I have it running on my home Netgate. At the same time, I can just put it on a slightly larger machine and run a massive, highly trafficked web environment. It will run anywhere.

It's easy to add features to pfSense and configure them assuming about web networking and routing and traffic through an edge router scenario. For a home user, it's probably a lot more than they would get through, but they wouldn't need to since you can just install it, and it just works right out of the box. Just about everything is easy. It's extremely well documented, and the amount of help that's available is fantastic.

I saw the benefits of pfSense immediately. When you need your router to do something more than, for example, a store-bought router for home, you immediately see it since now I can do things. I can set up multiple LANs. I can create a firewall between the LANs. I can open up a full demilitarized zone or just port forward into specific LANs and have the LANs porting between themselves in various ways. You don't get that stuff in your normal consumer-grade solution. You have to spend a lot of money to get a serious data center router - and on top of that, you need to get somebody to program that from the command line, which is very expensive. In contrast, pfSense has a graphical user interface, which makes it all very straightforward and easy to use to set up some pretty sophisticated routing scenarios.

I don't use pfSense to prevent data loss as I have backups, both on-site and off-site backups. It's effective for preventing data breaches.

pfSense gives users a single pane of glass as a type of management. There is everything in one instance. It has a graphical user interface. It'll come up with a dashboard that you can customize to put whatever you need to see up on there. I can customize the dashboard to show me the most important things to me. It's incredibly intuitive.

Managing multiple devices is easy enough. You just log in remotely to the device, and it's all connected through the IP. It's really quite simple.

There are two versions of pfSense: the community edition, which is free, and the plus version, which is paid. I'm using the paid one presently.

The solution minimizes downtime. Once it's configured, it works. I don't have to worry about it. I fully know it backwards and forwards since I've been using it for 15 years now and it pretty much just works. I have certain instances of pfSense that haven't even been rebooted in years since it's up and running and it keeps running, and it runs well. I rarely need to touch certain my installs after they've been set and configured.

The solution provides visibility that enables data-driven decisions. It has logging. It has intrusion detection systems, which will give you a whole lot of data that you can make decisions on. For example: Who do I need to block? Is somebody trying to attack me? It'll allow me to collect all that information to make critical decisions regarding exposing certain resources to the internet.

pfSense helps optimize performance in combination with the hardware that it's running on. That will determine what kind of performance you're going to be getting out of the box. It's a very lightweight software package. Depending on the hardware, you can hit it with lots of traffic, and it won't even hiccup.

I would like to see more active updates coming out of the developers. I like the FreeBSD. That said, the developers in FreeBSD are less productive than what you see out of the Linux community, where there are millions and millions of developers. Being FreeBSD-bound, it seems they're short of developers who have to specialize in that operating system.

I've used the solution since 2009.

The solution never crashes and never lags. It works. You fire it up, and it will work for the next 50 years. As long as the hardware is working, pfSense will just go on and do its thing.

Scalability all comes down to hardware. When you put pfSense on more robust hardware, it performs pretty well.

For the paid version, if I have an issue, I need to open a ticket. Before I had my business going, I used the community, and it worked it worked just as well. I haven't had a need to call support. However, I pay for pfSense Plus support in case something happens that's over my head that I need to speak to an expert about.

I contacted them when I had a question about a Snort setup, which is for intrusion detection and prevention. It turns out you have to contact their specialist, and that Snort requires you to pay extra for that help. It's a third-party plugin for pfSense. However, in relation to pfSense, issues, I have not needed help.

I've used Untangle and Cisco routers, and I've tried OPNsense.

I prefer pfSense. I'm comfortable with it. It's rock solid. I've never had an issue with it. I tell it to do something, and it does exactly what I tell it to do.

I have purchased NetGate appliances for customers. For my business, I have hardware that I've repurposed for pfSense.

The initial deployment, either way, is very easy. It would probably be easier than most commercial routers that people buy.

A simple instance where you're just using a firewall router with one LAN can take less than five minutes. You just install the software. It picks up the WAN IP and gives you a LAN IP, and it's up and working as quickly as the software will install, which is usually less than five minutes on most devices and most hardware.

I do the deployments myself. I don't see where a team would be required for this. It's just a firewall router. If you need a complicated setup, it might take one person, a couple of days of planning, and then implementation. That said, I don't see where you would need a team to do that unless you're installing a bunch of other network hardware at the same time, multiple switches, or a ten-gig, one-gig type of scenario. However, that's not a pfSense issue.

In terms of maintenance, generally, there is none. It will update itself. I see very few critical security updates. Most of them are our feature updates. I have certain installs that have been running without rebooting for five years, and it just installed them. Mostly, I'm leaving it alone.

The pricing is reasonable for what it is. I usually put it on my own hardware. The licensing for me is relatively inexpensive for what I'm getting out of it.

The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is fantastic. You can use the community edition and get expertise from the manufacturer. It's quite reasonable. It's quite a good setup.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

I'd advise potential new users to install it, plug it in, get to know it, log into it, and you'll start to see how easy and robust it is. The more you use it, the more you learn, and you'll like it as much as I do.

I use it as a firewall and router. I use it in a few locations. I have three pfSense products.

I like that I can geofence and block different countries from accessing my network.

The flexibility is very good.

I noted the benefits of pfSense within a year. I had it on my VM for a year and then put it into production.

It's good at blocking malware and DNS attacks. I don't use it for data loss prevention.

The solution gives me a single pane of management. Everything is accessible from the dashboard.

It provides features that help me minimize downtime. I have a WAN, and if any of my WANs go down, it's okay; I have them connected to pfSense.

It helps me make more data-driven decisions.

With pfSense, I can optimize performance.

I don't really need too many features. I just use it as a plain firewall. I like to keep it clean. I don't like to run too many things on it.

The configuration can be a little difficult. You need to know the system a little bit. Even now, I do have one in a VM where I test my stuff, and then implement it into production.

They could make it easier to configure packages. They could have a wizard that helps you out a bit more.

I've used the solution for more than five years.

I haven't had any issues with stability.

I haven't had issues with scalability. It's easy to back it up and load the backup.

Technical support is fast to respond. However, I did have to eventually pay for them to help me out. I had some problems with the firmware. Someone remote into my appliance and fixed it. They patched it up and now it's working fine.

I've used OPNsense and SonicWall previously.

While pfSense has more features, OPNsense is a lot easier to use.

I have the solution as an appliance. Deployment for a device is a little bit hard, so it can take a few days.

Maintenance is required every few days.

I did not have any help from outside consultants. I manage the deployment myself. I was able to eventually figure it out myself via forums.

I like the fact that there is a free version. I'd like the entire offering to be free. That said, it's 100% worth the cost of ownership.

I use both the paid and community version.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I would advise new users to test it before implementing it in their environment.

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.

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.