I am in IT. I use pfSense for my personal use. I use it to practice networking and understand how networks work. I apply all the networking-related things that I have learned to pfSense at home.

I also use it to isolate my IoT network from my regular network and from the devices I use for the cameras.

The main reason for implementing pfSense is that I like playing games. With pfSense, I can place quality control over the traffic traversing over the WAN connection or the Internet. I am able to prioritize and limit some devices to allow me to have a better connection to the Internet than some devices in our house.

pfSense is a flexible solution. It has features for setting devices into groups. I was able to group up the devices in our house to be able to set some restrictions on some devices and have full restrictions on other devices. It allowed me to control my kids' devices to limit access to the Internet to a certain time. It automatically stops on the Internet for those devices when that time comes.

pfSense gives a single pane of glass management in regard to the network. I was able to control everything in my network, which is good.

I use pfSense Plus. I got third-party hardware, not with pfSense, but I purchased the license to have a pfSense Plus version. That hardware went down a few days after I bought the license. I created a ticket, and the engineer allowed me to move it to another device because I had just recently purchased it. Thanks to them, I was able to have less downtime because I did not have extra money to purchase another license. I was able to bring it up as fast as possible. The backup and recovery of the configuration is very pretty easy. I just reuploaded the file and updated two lines of code, and that was it. Everything worked.

Everything works well. My streaming is working fine. My kids do not complain about any lags. I can play my games without having any issues. I do not experience any lags. When my wife is working, she does not have any problems downloading or uploading files back to her work. We are pretty happy with the performance.

For me, the firewall is most valuable because I can play around with the firewall. That is the best asset for me. I can limit what I want to limit, and I can open what I want to be open.

I like the versatility of pfSense. Compared to other products I have used for home and small businesses, this is the easiest to understand. It has enterprise features compared to, for example, Ubiquiti UniFi. Their router is limited to some features, whereas with pfSense I can do, for example, routing and dual WAN. I also have several VPN options.

It has a lot of features, but I wish there were even more features. Some of the features I am looking for are still not there in pfSense, like, for example, content control. Because I have kids, I want to control the content or what they watch. There is a feature in pfSense called pfBlocker, but it is limited. If I set that up, it is blocked by an IP address. Sometimes my devices are borrowed by my kids. They are able to get a full connection to the Internet, but their devices are limited. If content blocking is added to pfSense, it would be great. If I can block content by a user, that will be a preferred solution.

The frequency of feature releases can be better. We have been waiting for some of the features for a while, but they have not been released. I know they prioritize what is used in the enterprise area, and then they provide some features for regular consumers like me. If they can balance that 50:50 and focus equally on the enterprise and consumer suggestions, it will be great.

The interface and support are perfect for me. I saw a post on their blog that they will be moving to the Linux operating system. Hopefully, they would have better wireless because the wireless for pfSense is horrible or horrendous. If they move to Linux, hopefully, they will improve it.

I have been using pfSense since 2020. It has been four years now.

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

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

We are a family of five. Five of us are connecting to the pfSense Internet.

They are great. They are perfect for me.

I have used TP-Link and Ubiquiti EdgeRouter. In regards to features, the two are on par. They are way behind pfSense. pfSense is way ahead of these two in terms of what it could offer. In terms of security, TP-Link is very bad, EdgeRouter is in the middle, and pfSense is way ahead. In terms of performance, TP-Link is worse, and EdgeRouter and pfSense are neck to neck. I prefer pfSense over others.

I installed it on third-party hardware. The longest period of initial configuration was when I deployed it for the first time. After that, it is very fast because I can back up my config and restore it if I break something.

It took an hour or two for all the installation and configuration.

In terms of maintenance, it requires regular updates. That is the only maintenance that it needs. I also need to monitor if any known or zero-day bugs are found in pfSense. I am watching that because pfSense is the device facing the Internet, so I need to be always alert about any zero-day bugs. I also need to be mindful of the configuration to not accidentally expose any ports. These are the three things required in terms of maintenance.

In four years of using it, that payment of 189 dollars per year has already paid off. Over these years, I only experienced it going down two or three times, which is less than 1% downtime per year.

It is cheap. If you are a technical person, it is a pretty cheap solution because first of all, the Community Edition (CE) is free. I am in Australia, and my pfSense license is about 200 dollars. It is not bad because it is per year and not per month. It is cheap compared to other solutions.

I am not using the hardware. I am using the software. It is very cheap. It does not cost me a lot. The only cost is just the one-year payment. If I need extra hardware, I need to purchase that from the third party whose hardware I am using.

I would recommend pfSense to others. I already recommended it to my boss, and he is using it now. He is loving it as well. It is easy to use, and there are a lot of resources available. If you have any problem, someone would have already encountered that problem and found a fix, so it is easy to fix based on that. It is very reliable. The downtime experience is very low. It is almost zero.

I would rate pfSense a ten out of ten.

We have a tiny business that uses pfSense to create a secure VPN between our two locations.

It's a reliable platform. We also value pfSense's security features because we have to comply with PCI for credit card payments. We need to be confident that we'll have the security. PfSense offers that.

We realized the benefits of pfSense almost immediately. I read about a company using it and thought it would be the most secure thing. It's a bit daunting at first because you have to configure it. However, they create ISP versions, so you can leave those alone and not configure them. This does the whole thing in one box, whereas, with the ISP thing, you have to think about how many different appliances you'll need to make it work.

I like how easy it is to access VPNs and stuff like that. It's so simple to set up a site-to-site VPN. The solution is flexible enough to do just about anything. It's super easy to configure the features as long as you have the details you need, or you can build out stuff if it lacks what you're after because it has a plugin architecture.

It depends on how you run it, but pfSense can help you prevent data loss. Still, it's more about preventing people from getting in and having the confidence that you won't be compromised. And if you need those extra features, you can always add them and all those things that can monitor what's happening in your website or organization.

The web interface allows you to see bandwidth, how things connect, and much more. PfSense Plus prevents downtime. It has a feature that records everything you do so that if a unit fails, you can swap it out and enter your details, and then it loads your configuration on a new device. PeerSpot Plus provides visibility that enables data-driven decisions. You can set it up to do that if you want it.

They could always make pfSense slightly more user-friendly and modernize the interface a little.

I have used pfSense since 2015, so it's been around nine years.

I've never seen pfSense crash.

It's at the scale that I need it, but you can certainly scale it up to the enterprise level if you want to have a better product. It depends on the hardware.

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. I only contacted them once. It was very quick and efficient. I had a sensible solution within five minutes. I couldn't imagine having better support.

I used some Netgear hardware, but I don't remember the model because it was eight years ago. When I switched to pfSense, I stuck with it because it works reliably.

Deploying pfSense was pretty easy. I'm an IT guy, so I did it myself. After deployment, you need to do some routine maintenance, like upgrading occasionally and checking your file logs. Apart from that, it does everything for you.

They have a free community version and a paid version. The free version works if you are a home user who needs a fixed cost, but that's not my use case.

I rate Netgate pfSense 10 out of 10. I can't think of a way to make it better. Before deploying pfSense, prepare your area and your network. Understand your entire network and what you want to do before you start doing anything then follow the documentation.

After successfully using pfSense at home to manage IoT devices and separate their traffic from my computers and gaming consoles, I'm now evaluating its suitability for our hospital system. As the IT manager, I'm impressed and considering replacing our current firewalls with Netgate pfSense appliances.

I implemented pfSense at home to proactively prevent security issues on my home devices.

Netgate pfSense is flexible allowing us to add plugins.

It has improved my home network's security, making it significantly harder for attackers to access my data.

Netgate pfSense works well to prevent data loss and helps optimize performance.

As a first-time NetGate pfSense user, I've been impressed by several features: easy integration for blocking traffic by country, straightforward creation and management of firewall rules, and the ability to extend functionality through plugins.

I'd love a centralized management system for multiple pfSense appliances. This is where Netgate could improve. Redesigning my network for seven pfSense units sounds like a daunting task, especially with the need for individual configuration. A single pane of glass for managing everything at once would be a game-changer, streamlining the process significantly.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for five years.

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

Based on what I have heard from other users and what I have read, Netgate pfSense can scale.

The deployment was easy, but I took a cautious, phased approach to avoid disrupting household internet access. Once complete, the upgrade from my previous Netgate appliance allowed me to take advantage of SFP+ ports, so I put ten gigabytes into it and continued fine-tuning the system.

The initial deployment for basic functionality was completed within a few hours, but achieving full functionality took approximately two weeks.

Netgate pfSense stands out as a cost-effective option that delivers excellent value. While I haven't personally used their support at home, a vendor I spoke with praises it highly. Their reputation suggests phenomenal hospital-grade support might be worthwhile for a critical environment like ours.

Netgate's maintenance contracts are significantly more affordable compared to other vendors, demonstrating their competitive pricing and commitment to customer value.

I would rate Netgate pfSense ten out of ten.

Netgate pfSense is low maintenance.

Before committing to any network or security hardware, including Netgate pfSense, I recommend a Proof of Concept to ensure it meets your specific needs. Don't rely solely on others' suggestions. Thankfully, pfSense offers downloadable virtual images, allowing you to experiment with its features before purchasing physical equipment.

I am using it for personal use.

It is quite easy to manage firewall rules and policies in pfSense. It is not the most user-friendly, but it gets us there. We have to be sure of all the things that we are activating, but it is easy. It is alright.

Open source and support are valuable. I have community support.

Its performance is good. It is reliable. I would rate it a solid nine out of ten for performance.

There are several levels of firewall configuration such as beginner, advanced, and expert configurations. At each level, it becomes more complex and more tricky to set up the firewall. For example, if you want to install the firewall on your computer system, it would be a lot easier if it just tells you that this is the internet NIC and this is the Wi-Fi NIC.

It would also be interesting if we could add an interface for DNS versions. It will be a multisystem to make all the blocks of the DNS. I know that firewalls are different from DNS, but if we could take advantage of everything in a single system, that would be lovely.

I have been using pfSense for half a year.

It is stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of stability.

I believe it is scalable. If I need more computers with more NICs, it is scalable, but it is not something related to pfSense.

The support that I have is community support.

I also use WatchGuard Firebox. It is different from pfSense. I have Firebox on a rack mount server on a cabinet, whereas pfSense is on my computer, so it is quite different because I can use any kind of hardware to implement the firewall.

Firebox can make an open-source version, but that is not the target of the company. pfSense is doing a great job because they have covered both situations. They have an open-source version with community support, and if we purchase the license for hardware, we can also get support from their side. In the long run, pfSense has more advantages.

If I go to a company and they ask me to implement something, I would most definitely go with pfSense. Its price is lower. I have a great knowledge of pfSense. I can very easily find support in the community, and if the company buys a license, I can get support directly from pfSense. I believe it is a win-win for pfSense and for the customers.

I am implementing it in two phases. In the first phase, it was implemented directly on hardware on an old computer with five NICs, and everything went smoothly. The second stage is virtualizing this machine into a Proxmox server, which is a bit more tricky. It is quite difficult to make it work on the NIC hardware system.

The first phase is very easy. It is almost plug-and-play. We just have to install it and activate the NICs. Everything will go smoothly. The second phase is not easy because I have to make double configurations on Proxmox and on pfSense. I would rate it an eight out of ten in terms of the ease of setup.

In terms of our environment, I have one computer connected directly to the Internet's router, and then all the information is passed through and managed, so I can filter everything by MAC address in my network. I have it on one computer, but my whole network is using it.

I use the free version.

I would recommend it. For personal use, it is a great way to start. For companies, it is a great add-on. Companies can get support by buying the license.

I would rate pfSense a ten out of ten.

We are solution providers and this is one of the products that we deploy for our customers. We replaced old Cisco ASA with pfSense and it proves as a good choice.

PfSense gives tools to protect the network. If you configured things properly then you'll be protected to the distant level. PFsense gives a solid set of functionalities that work perfectly. VPN services are stable and easy to deploy.

The classic features such as content inspection, content protection, and the application-level firewall, and VPN Are most common. This is a feature-rich product and the documentation is good.

Ease of use is a problem for a user who is unfamiliar with this product because, in the interface, everything has to be set manually. It would be more user-friendly if things were set automatically.

The drop in performance can be drastic when you use more advanced techniques. There is some trade-off between having a certain level of security and maintaining acceptable performance.

We have more than ten years of experience with pfSense.

The stability of pfSense is standard. It is rated as one of the good solutions in this area.

This product is scalable to some point, although we have never used it for large companies. We use it for small to medium-sized organizations. For big companies, we more often implement Palo Alto.

In our company, we have a data center and some of our clients are hooked to it. This is something that we have on-premises for our customers.

We have plans to increase our usage with pfSense because we have had good feedback from our customers. In fact, with the good experience we have had, our sales have been slightly increasing. Our sales are shifting from Sophos to pfSense.

The technical support is organized well. We do most of the technical support for our customers in-house but there is a second level of outside support available. It is okay.

We currently resell products from both pfSense, Sophos and Cisco. In some areas, pfSense is better than Sophos. I have been a bit disappointed with Sophos because I know their history, and I don't think that they have advanced as well as they should have in that time. Also, they have two different products, XG and UTM. This is another reason that I prefer pfSense, at least a little bit, over Sophos.

The initial setup is complex. If you have a straightforward setup then you will have straightforward, basic protection and nothing else.

It takes a few months to adjust where you start by setting it up, and then you have to monitor it and see what's happening. It's ongoing work because, after this, you have to keep monitoring and adjusting to the situation. This is part of the service that we perform for our customers.

We are the integrators for our customers and deploy with our in-house team. We have people in the company who are specialized in this area.

The return on investment depends on the predicted cost of failures of the system, or intrusion of the system, which is hard to give a straight answer on. In part, this is because different companies put a different value on their data.

For example, with medicine, if somebody were to steal the data related to the latest CORONA vaccine then the cost would be tremendous. On the other hand, if there is a company that is making chairs, stealing the design of the chair probably wouldn't be as high when compared to an application in medicine. So, there is not a straight answer for that.

Return on investment, in any case, I think for every company, this is a must. Put in a straightforward way, they can count just the possibilities of having an attack on their system with a cryptovirus. If they can save their data from attackers then it would save them at least two days of not working plus the cost of recovery, which would be much more than the cost of the system and maintenance.

The price of the licensing depends on the size of the deployment. pfSense is open-source, but the support is something that the customer pays for. We charge them for the first line of support and if they want, they can purchase the second line of support. Typically, they take the first-line option.

The term of licensing also depends on the contract. The firewall doesn't always have a contract but rather, there is a contract in place for the network, which includes UTM.

In addition to the licensing fees, there are costs for hardware, installation, and maintenance. We use HPE servers, and the cost depends on how large the installation is. The price of setup is approximately €500 to €800, which also includes the initial monitoring.

The maintenance cost isn't really included in the network fees.

For smaller companies, we charge them a few hours a month for monitoring. It takes longer if the client is bigger.

Palo Alto, Fortinet, Sophos, Cisco

It is important to remember that you can't just leave the device to do everything. You still have to know what you're doing.

I recommend the product. It's well-balanced and one with a long history, so it doesn't have child's diseases. There is a lot of online support available online, which they can consult themselves. But, in the case that they need support, they can hire a professional support line and that is highly recommended.

I say this because usually, people look at the UTM as something that should be put in the system, set up, and left alone. But, this is not the case with this type of solution. Therefore, I strongly suggest making an outside agreement with a specialized company that will take care of their security from that point on.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using this kind of product is that you can't assume that the internet is a big place and nobody will find you. There is always a good possibility that robots will search your system for holes, and they are probably doing so this instant. This means that users should be aware and have decent protection.

In summary, this is a good product but there is always room for improvement.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.