I have the Netgate 6100 firewall with pfSense at my house, and I also have several business clients on it. I use it for site-to-site VPN from one doctor's office to another so their PBX phone systems can replicate across the network.

PfSense helps prevent data loss. It's a firewall, so unless you open ports, they are completely closed off, and nobody will crack into your network. You can set up various rules that will let you know if you have an intrusion or block an IP address, country, etc., for malicious threats.

I haven't experienced any downtime with the 6100, but I've had problems with the Netgate 2100 appliances. One of the data-driven procedures is performance. If you make a change, your traffic comes up almost immediately. If I had to compare pfSense to SonicWall, I probably wouldn't use SonicWall based on the boot time. When you have to restart the system or something like that, pfSense is quick, whereas these other firewalls will take 10 minutes to come back online.

The visibility pfSense provides helps optimize performance. Some of the stuff is visible in their charts and graphs. You can see their traffic moving in real time. That's beneficial to me, especially if I'm looking for something. For example, if you're looking for an IP address that's seeing a lot of data, you can narrow it down to what device it is.

The most valuable aspect of pfSense is the community. If you have a question, you can post it on the forum. The backups are also good. I restored it from a hard drive recently and was back up in 10 minutes.

I like pfSense's flexibility. It lets you install it on multiple applications, such as a VM, appliance, or white box. For a short time, the community edition had a free upgrade to the Plus edition, so you could technically download the version and convert it into a Plus version. They offered support there for a while, but I don't know if they still do.

If you log into it, it is a single pane of glass, but the features are scattered everywhere. If you make a firewall rule and you run a port, it will automatically make the firewall rule for you, so you don't have to do that. That's convenient versus some firewalls where you have to make the net rule, then you have to make the firewall rule to allow the net to operate.

It's easy to add features, but some require configuration. Depending on the feature you're adding, that can be tricky. I wish their GUI were easier to use because it's always been scattered instead of having everything in one column. You have to click one thing to get something to work kind of like UniFi. You have to be a little techie to get it working as you want. The only other problem I've encountered is that sometimes it has buffer bloat, and you have to go in and change some firewall limiter rules to get the bloat to go away. Once you get it down and have done it a couple of times, it seems fairly straightforward.

If the GUI interface were better, that would be a huge benefit. There's a fork of pfSense called OpenSense with a far superior interface. Everything's in the left-hand column. When you click on one item, you see everything listed under a single tab. You don't have to jump back and forth through the program.

Everybody is sometimes scared of open firewalls, but they get updates regularly. I check them all the time. I wish it had an app or some alert feature that you could set up. That would make it a little bit easier if something went wrong because you usually don't find out until the last second.

I've used pfSense for 10 to 15 years.

PfSense is highly stable. I don't typically have any crashes. Usually, it's hardware problems, such as a hard drive or memory chip. Beyond that, I have had no issues with any appliances that pfSense installed.

The scalability is good because if you have two identical devices, you can do high availability, so it's highly scalable.

I rate Netgate support 10 out of 10. Netgate technical support is just phenomenal. If you pay for support, they're on it right away. I've had to call them a couple of times and ask for a system image for some of their lower-end devices. I've noticed that an upgrade will sometimes break them. You can take the serial and model numbers, send them an email, and they'll send you the image. You just download the image, flash it over onto the device, and restore from the backup.

I've used UniFi's Dream Machines, FortiGate, SonicWall, and OpenSense. I've got one instance of OpenSense out there. They're all about the same in performance, but everything has its own learning curve. The learning curve of pfSense is higher than OpenSense because of the GUI, which is a little confusing and intimidating for someone brand new.

A brand-new user might be confused, especially if they don't have too much networking capability. If you have a white box and download the software, you need to configure everything, including the network interface card, but if you buy an appliance, you should be able to plug into a port and get an IP address. That's not the case with the community. It isn't. For those who want to dabble and play around with it, there's a bit of a learning curve there at the beginning on how to get it. They have some good documentation, but it's a little confusing.

I can have it running in 10 minutes. It depends on what you're doing and whether you have VLANs, which can be confusing to configure. But you can set up a simple home user with no VLANs in 10 minutes. For maintenance, it'll tell you if there's an update, but I typically wait a while before I do the update to ensure that it's solid. They do good testing on it, but I've had some problems where it breaks something else when they do an update.

The price of pfSense is on par with everything else. It depends on how big an appliance you buy and whether you're purchasing it directly from Netgate. Some rack-mounted systems are expensive—a couple thousand bucks. The one that I use at my house was $700.

The total cost of ownership isn't too high or too low. I think it's right where it needs to be. Obviously, with new appliances and faster technology, your prices will go up, but that's expected with any product you buy. It was all free when I first started using it, and you could put it in any box you wanted to buy.

I rate pfSense eight out of 10. The reason I give it an eight is that the GUI needs to be cleaned up a little. I think Netgate would sell more if the GUI were a little more like Opensense. Before buying, I would test the community edition on a virtual machine and select an appropriate appliance based on your deployment.

I use pfSense as our primary firewall and router. We use several functions of pfSense, including the OpenVPN capabilities for mobile VPN and pfBlocker for DNS blocklisting. We also use Snort for IPS capabilities.

The solution helped us secure the perimeter against vulnerabilities. I'm confident in the team's ability to keep things updated and all the security holes patched. It also has security add-ons like IDS, IPS, etc. We realized the benefits immediately.

My favorite thing about pfSense is its overall stability of the product. It's rock solid and low maintenance. I like that aspect. It doesn't cost much, and it's feature-rich, including mobile VPN, pfBlocker, and IPS. You have the flexibility to deploy it as bare metal or VM.

It's very easy to add features to pfSense and to configure them. The solution's management page offers a single pane of glass view. You can clearly see the various features on the main page, and it isn't difficult to drill down into the other sections for more details.

I can't say which features Plus provides that the community edition doesn't. I only knew that the Plus edition was the path forward. I was previously on a community edition for many years, but I've been on the Plus edition for at least a couple of years now.

One area of improvement would be better communication. They kind of left a lot of people in the dark and misled them about the pfSense Plus Edition. I feel like they automatically switched people over and then followed that up with a required subscription model. That aggravated a lot of customers, including me, but I stuck with it regardless.

I have used pfSense for nearly a decade.

I rate pfSense 10 out of 10 for reliability.

pfSense is highly scalable. The only limitation is the hardware you have behind it. As long as you can upgrade your hardware when you scale, pfSense will be able to support it.

I rate pfSense support nine out of 10. I've typically gotten all the answers I sought when needed. They are highly responsive. I don't think I've ever had to wait more than an hour to get a reply.

I wasn't involved in deploying pfSense. I maintain an existing one. For maintenance, you just need to periodically update to the latest version of pfSense Plus and maintain the different rulesets, such as firewall, IPS, and pfBlocker rules.

The total cost of ownership of pfSense is rather low. After the recent subscription change, it doesn't cost us more than a couple hundred bucks a year. The only other thing I have to pay for is the business Snort license for the IDaaS IPS functionality.

I rate pfSense nine out of 10. I recommend doing a white box deployment because it's easier on the hardware. I tried pfSense on a Netgate appliance and wasn't impressed with the performance compared to the white box I already had in place. I suggest starting with a spare server you have — Dell, HP, etc.

I use pfSense for my home network firewall. I also manage two Cloud platforms that use it.

Netgate pfSense is flexible allowing for modifications to meet our needs.

With my strong security background and experience managing pfSense, adding and configuring new features is a breeze. While some might encounter challenges, my expertise allows me to navigate them with ease.

pfSense impressed me with its ease of deployment and low maintenance. It excels in protection and firewall functionality and offers a wide range of add-ins to further customize my network. After considering alternatives like OPNsense and Untangle, pfSense emerged as the perfect fit for my needs.

The single pane of glass provided by pfSense makes it easier to determine issues related to attacks and what is being blocked. I can see live logging of the firewalls and what rules apply to what.

pfSense does a good job helping prevent data loss using Snort which identifies and blocks suspicious traffic before it enters our network.

pfSense Plus offers a visibility feature that helps me optimize network performance. The dashboard displays clear traffic graphs and device load information, and I can customize it to show exactly what I need.

The total cost of ownership is extremely reasonable. pfSense is a good option, especially for people conscious of recurring expenses.

The most valuable features of pfSense are the high availability that easily allows failover to a backup unit and the Snort integration with pfSense and WireGuard.

Netgate pfSense can improve by adding a different OS layer other than FreeBSD.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for ten years.

Netgate pfSense has been stable.

pfSense's scalability is highly dependent on the hardware you choose, but despite this, it offers a strong ability to handle increased network demands overall.

In addition to pfSense, I have used OPNsense, WatchGuard, and Cisco. The WatchGuard rules were more straightforward than pfSense. New pfSense users might find deciding between floating and interface rules for specific scenarios confusing.

The installation is easy for those who are comfortable with command-line interfaces. It is quick and straightforward but they have to be careful when assigning the internal or external net because that can be challenging for some.

One person is enough to deploy.

Netgate pfSense is competitively priced. The 4100 box is a good box for the price.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

Before deploying pfSense in your lab, I recommend checking the pfSense forums to learn about any potential issues or considerations other users have encountered.

I'm an independent IT consultant specializing in pfSense router deployments. I use pfSense not only in my home and my parents' homes but also at ten of my clients' locations.

The pfSense router can be deployed on-premises, in the cloud, or on a hybrid platform, but I only deploy it on-premise.

pfSense's flexibility overall is excellent. I can't think of a feature that it doesn't have.

Once I got the hang of it, pfSense became easy to use to add new features. However, there are occasional complexities, like configuring a RADIUS server, which initially seemed overly complicated. Thankfully, the documentation helped me navigate the process successfully.

I immediately saw the benefits of pfSense based on the cost savings alone. The routers are low-cost, to begin with, and there are no annual licensing fees like those required by Cisco routers and other brands. I have replaced many Cisco routers with pfSense because of the ridiculous licensing fees.

pfSense, as long as it is properly configured, is excellent at helping us prevent data loss.

Netgate hardware devices come pre-installed with pfSense Plus, which means all of our installations benefit from pfSense Plus because they run on Netgate hardware.

pfSense provides visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions. The package manager lets us add a lot more visibility. I use the softflowd add-on package, and there are a few other add-ons if we need more visibility.

The visibility provided by pfSense helps optimize performance. The data flows across the different subnets, which is helpful if there is a performance issue.

pfSense stands out for its full features and adherence to industry standards. Unlike competitors introducing proprietary variations like UniFi or Omada, pfSense prioritizes compliance. This is crucial in manufacturing environments where diverse systems need to integrate seamlessly. In such multi-brand settings, standard compliance becomes a critical factor for successful system interaction.

pfSense doesn't offer a central management system for multiple sites, which wouldn't be a big deal for most of my customers, who typically manage just one site. However, for larger companies with many sites, logging into each pfSense router individually to manage them could become cumbersome.

Previously, we were able to download an offline installer for our firmware. For example, if our router crashes, we must reinstall the OS. We would have it on a USB stick that is available to reinstall. Now, with the current version of pfSense, they are no longer providing an offline installer. We have to be connected to the internet to download the OS in real time, which, in some cases, is not possible. Some routers need to be air-gapped for compliance controls. They are not supposed to have access to the internet. In other cases, we can't disconnect the company's internet to connect the replacement router because that would take down the company. So we don't have a way to install the OS. I went back and forth with Netgate's support, trying to get that through their heads, and eventually, a manager gave me the offline installer but told me this would be the last one and not to expect this ever again. They have provided offline installers for 15 years, so I don't understand why they would remove them now. They are not considering all of the use cases. If we have a large company and the router goes down, we could be losing thousands of dollars an hour, and we don't want to sit there trying to troubleshoot an internet connection when we could use a USB stick to reinstall it in two seconds and restore the config. This is an essential need for some organizations and an area where Netgate pfSense can improve.

I've been a Netgate pfSense user for nearly 15 years, practically since its launch.

Netgate pfSense has been excellent in terms of stability. I have never had an issue with any of the business-grade routers. Their lowest-end model runs on MMC storage instead of regular hard drive storage, and I have had some of those crash.

Netgate pfSense has different tiers, so the higher we scale, the more expensive it gets, but as long as we match it appropriately, it works great.

I have never paid for Netgate support, but when we purchase a new router, they allow us to send a config of the old router and provide one-time support for free. So, I have interacted with them a few times under these terms. The results have been mixed. Sometimes, I can tell I am speaking to a competent person, and others don't understand what I'm saying. In the past 15 years, I have been working with pfSense routers. I have contacted the support team 15 times, and the results have been 50/50.

I have used Cisco routers, which were a real hassle to manage. I have also used Linksys and Apple AirPort routers.

The initial deployment for a new user is moderate. It all depends on their experience level. The documentation on their website is suitable for beginners. For a basic deployment, there are many articles from other people and YouTube videos on how to deploy.

Compared to other business routers, pfSense's pricing is reasonable. It also offers a free community version that can't be beaten.

With the inclusion of firewall, VPN, and router functionality, pfSense's total cost of ownership is low compared to other routers like SonicWall, which licenses the VPN feature.

When I compare pfSense to other routers like TP-Link and Omada, I see that it has all the standard network features, whereas the others are missing a few. The challenge with pfSense is learning to use it because of all the features it includes. I have never felt like I needed to change brands because pfSense was missing a required feature.

I would rate Netgate pfSense eight out of ten. It is a great product.

I recommend new users do a test setup on their home network first to understand how it works before moving it into their business.

I recently started using pfSense to secure my home network. As an IT consultant working remotely, I needed better security than my router offered. I run servers in a lab environment to demo software for clients, and in my previous consulting role, I managed networks for companies of all sizes, some with hundreds of thousands of devices. Since we can't modify a client's environment directly, having a secure home lab for testing is crucial. pfSense allows me to segment my network and use a VPN for secure remote access, offering more functionality than my previous setup. While a free version exists, I opted for the convenience of a pre-configured appliance.

pfSense surprised me with its ease of use, even though it's powerful enough for corporate environments. Unlike my previous complicated Cisco firewall that now collects dust in the garage, pfSense offers the flexibility and functionality I need.

pfSense offers a default rule that allows all traffic initially. While I prefer to block everything by default and only allow specific traffic, this approach led me to accidentally lock myself out of the firewall during configuration. The device functioned as intended, following my overly restrictive rule. Resetting to factory settings was a learning experience, and now I understand how to avoid self-imposed lockouts. After diagnosing my initial setup issues, I successfully corrected them and implemented filters that boosted our internet speed. This experience made clear the benefit of pfSense for our network.

The firewall acts as my first line of defense against data loss by controlling incoming and outgoing traffic. Additionally, I keep my devices updated with security patches and utilize application whitelisting, which restricts programs to those from approved vendors with verified digital signatures. This helps prevent unknown malware from executing on my system. While demonstrating data loss prevention for a government agency, I encountered a connection hurdle between my devices on different subnets. Realizing a firewall was blocking communication, I opened the necessary ports to allow the connection. This highlights the firewall's role as a first line of defense. Even if one device is compromised, the firewall helps prevent the attack from spreading to other segments of the network. However, it's important to remember that the subnet itself remains at risk, which is why I also use local firewalls on individual devices for additional protection.

When it comes to the firewall functionality of pfSense, it does provide a single-pane-of-glass to manage everything.

The most valuable aspect of pfSense for me is its firewall functionality. It allows me to set up different networks, and VLANs, and control how subnets communicate with each other, all the way down to individual nodes. This granular control is very important for my network security. Additionally, pfSense offers a variety of alternatives like VPN that I haven't explored yet, but my top priorities are the firewall features that protect my network from external threats and allow me to segment internal traffic. I also use the filter feature to filter internet ads and adult content. The filter list depends on someone keeping it updated, but the community has been great for this and it makes my internet browsing much faster because all the junk ads are blocked.

pfSense would be much more efficient if it allowed exporting the entire configuration of a device after it's been set up. This way, the configuration could be easily imported onto another device, saving time and effort.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for one year.

Netgate pfSense is stable with zero downtime related to the firewall.

Netgate pfSense can scale at an enterprise level.

Cisco's firewall device proved too complex for me, ending up unused in my garage. Thankfully, pfSense offered a much more user-friendly experience.

pfSense deployment was straightforward thanks to the available documentation and video tutorials, although I did lock myself out once due to user error. While IT professionals might not always consult the manual first, pfSense helpfully allows saving configurations without immediate application, a feature that would have prevented my mistake. Learning from this experience, I now know how to leverage the provided resources for a smoother pfSense deployment process.

I did the deployment myself but someone who is not an IT person will require the help of an integrator or consultant.

I deployed pfSense in two and a half days. It included setting up VLANs for different purposes like a DMZ, server LAN, user devices, guest network, and VMware management. I also configured a firewall with rules to isolate these networks and implemented an IPSec VPN to filter out ads and malicious sites.

The implementation was completed in-house.

pfSense offers a surprisingly affordable enterprise-grade solution for small businesses. While my own pfSense 6100 costs $700, the value it provides makes it a very cost-effective purchase.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

Other than installing updates, pfSense has not required any maintenance.

Before configuring your network devices, plan out your network segmentation. This written plan will guide how you set up VLANs, servers, DHCP scopes, and DNS. Think of it as a blueprint for your network design. While implementing the plan on a Netgate device or pfSense might be straightforward, without a clear strategy, you'll be overwhelmed by the available features.

I use Netgate pfSense in my home lab and company. I wanted to learn more about networking so I swapped my ISP router with Netgate pfSense.

Netgate pfSense is a flexible solution. Netgate has its appliances but if I want to use pfSense somewhere else, I can install it into a virtual machine or on my hardware.

I would rate the ease of adding features to Netgate pfSense eight out of ten.

Netgate pfSense has improved the traffic visibility of the devices we are monitoring. Netgate pfSense has also taught me a lot about networking because I got to use an enterprise-grade firewall.

pfSense Plus helps minimize downtime thanks to its ZFS snapshotting feature. This means if we misconfigure something, we can quickly restore our system to a previous working state, reducing downtime.

Both pfSense Plus and the community edition provide visibility that enables us to make data-driven decisions.

Netgate pfSense has provided a reduction in downtime of 30 percent thanks to its user-friendly configuration process.

The most valuable features of Netgate pfSense are the ease of use and GUI.

pfSense's dashboard offers basic monitoring, but it lacks centralized management for multiple PSM devices and a unified event interface for various services. Ideally, I'd like a management interface that can handle multiple PSMs, even if they're in different locations. This interface should provide at least status information and basic management features.

I have been using Netgate pfSense for three years.

I would rate the stability of Netgate pfSense nine out of ten. While I did encounter some issues earlier on, they have all since been resolved.

Netgate pfSense is scalable. While we haven't used features like the rack-mounted version or maxed out its capabilities, the system is easily scalable. Upgrading to a more powerful model is simple - just export our settings and import them to the new device.

I had to use the technical support twice and they were extremely quick to respond and deal with my issues.

While I previously switched from UniFi to pfSense for its wider range of features, the gap between them has narrowed somewhat. However, pfSense remains a more enterprise-focused option, allowing for granular control over specific network elements useful in complex environments. UniFi, on the other hand, offers a less detailed view.

While the initial setup was mostly straightforward, some specific configurations proved challenging and lacked intuitiveness. To address these, I consulted YouTube videos and Netgate's documentation.

I would rate the ease of the setup process a seven out of ten.

Installing pfSense took a full day.

I implemented pfSense myself.

pfSense has definitely paid off for me. It's become a rock-solid foundation for my network. Since the memory leak fixes, it's been incredibly stable and requires minimal maintenance.

While pfSense hardware from Netgate might have a higher upfront cost, I've had very little trouble with it. Plus, buying from them directly helps fund the software's development, making it a worthwhile investment in my eyes.

pfSense offers a reasonable total cost of ownership for me. Since I primarily use it at home, I don't need additional features or paid support. However, compared to commercial options like SonicWall, even support costs seem affordable. It's worth noting that advanced features like Suricato or Snort require additional subscriptions for business use, but overall, pfSense remains a cost-effective solution.

I would rate Netgate pfSense nine out of ten.

pfSense handles both my home lab, suitable for a small household, and our company's branch office with roughly 150 on-site users and 50 remote VPN connections. It also facilitates a site-to-site VPN connection between this branch and our main New York office.

pfSense is low-maintenance. While regular updates are important, I typically won't need to perform much additional maintenance beyond occasional logins to check the dashboard and install those updates.

pfSense is a stable and feature-rich firewall, but it lacks Layer 7 application filtering, which means you can't easily block specific applications. While I haven't personally needed this feature, it's a known gap in pfSense's functionality.

I recommend pfSense overall to others.

We use it for the backup line for the internet. When the internet is disconnected, we transfer to pfSense.

We only use it for the backup internet connection. It is effective. We have not had any problems.

We have not had any problems with it, and we also do not have a need for any new features. If anything, its reporting can be better. Sophos has better reporting than pfSense. Sophos has more detailed information. pfSense is not as detailed. It is summarized.

I have been using pfSense for six months.

It is stable. I would rate it an eight out of ten for stability.

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

I have not used their support.

The installation of pfSense is very easy. It took two to three hours.

It is easy to maintain. We did not have to do any maintenance of pfSense since we installed it.

It is free. It is open source.

We have not used the VPN capabilities of pfSense. We also did not have a need to integrate pfSense with any service.

I would rate pfSense a nine out of ten.

One of our clients operates multiple branches, and we've implemented a solution involving feature and IP address tunnels connecting these branches. The main branch serves as the hub, housing the Central PBX and providing services to the other branches.

We use pfSense to handle VPN connections, extending to remote workers in our various branches as well.

The feature I find most valuable for fulfilling network security requirements is pfBlockerNG. It offers exceptional visibility and filtering capabilities, without the need for dedicated hardware or recurring expenses. Unlike other solutions, pfBlockerNG operates seamlessly and continuously without additional costs or maintenance concerns.

The traffic shaping and bandwidth management features of pfSense significantly enhance our network performance. The inclusion of a QoS wizard simplifies the process, eliminating the complexity often associated with configuring QoS on other platforms like Cisco routers. With pfSense, utilizing the wizard streamlines the setup process, making it accessible and effective for users without requiring an advanced understanding of networking intricacies.

There have been specific incidents where the reporting and monitoring tools of pfSense played a crucial role in identifying and resolving network issues. In one instance, we received complaints about internet connectivity problems affecting productivity across the business. Upon investigation, I discovered that the issue stemmed from excessive bandwidth consumption caused by multiple HD camera streams being watched simultaneously. Utilizing pfSense's reporting and monitoring tools, I quickly pinpointed the source of the problem and implemented measures to alleviate the network congestion. These tools are invaluable for identifying resource-intensive processes and resolving performance issues effectively.

The process of integrating pfSense with other tools and services has proven to be quite straightforward thus far. While there may be a slight learning curve at the outset, particularly for those less familiar with networking concepts, it becomes manageable with experience.

The most valuable feature, for instance, is the ease of migrating configurations between different Netgate devices housed in the same box. This capability simplifies troubleshooting, as it allows for faster identification of DNS discrepancies or any other issues compared to proprietary systems. With pfSense, network configurations adhere to standard practices, facilitating troubleshooting without the need for complex overlays or policies. The interface, prioritizes network principles, making it intuitive for those familiar with networking concepts to navigate and achieve desired outcomes efficiently.

It lacks a solution for SD-WAN integration. I believe improving integration with various antivirus vendors could be beneficial. Partnering with trusted antivirus providers such as Bitdefender or Sophos as an add-on feature could enhance the antivirus capabilities of pfSense. Incorporating a centralized management console for easier administration would be a valuable addition.

I have been working with it for over five years.

The stability of pfSense is exceptional. I've only encountered one instance of hardware failure, which was due to an electrical issue. Otherwise, all other deployments have been reliable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

The scalability of pfSense is impressive. I've witnessed its capabilities firsthand, especially when it was deployed in environments supporting up to seven thousand employees. I would rate it nine out of ten. Currently, pfSense is our top recommendation for clients, tailored to their budget and specific requirements. Depending on the client's needs, such as compliance with PCI or HIPAA regulations, we may suggest models that offer corresponding features and evaluations of network security. This flexibility allows us to cater to clients with varying compliance needs, ensuring they receive suitable recommendations.

In terms of technical support, I primarily rely on the forums whenever I have a question or need technical information. I've found that the answers I seek are often readily available there. While pfSense does offer paid support packages, I haven't had the opportunity to utilize them yet.

The main difference between Fortinet and pfSense lies in their integration with different vendors. While pfSense offers integration with multiple commercial antivirus solutions, Fortinet primarily provides its own antivirus offering. However, the effectiveness of the antivirus provided by pfSense may not be as high as some other options available in the market. In terms of cost, pfSense offers a one-time payment for cloud services, providing continuous service without ongoing fees. On the other hand, Fortinet's pricing structure may seem appealing initially, but if you wait until close to the license expiration date, the renewal cost significantly increases, which could result in unexpectedly high expenses.

The initial setup was straightforward.

To set up pfSense, you start by configuring firewall rules to allow the necessary traffic. Once that's done, you can explore and download additional security packages from the package manager to enhance your environment's security. The initial setup is quick, typically taking around ten minutes for a basic configuration. However, if you're integrating features like pfBlockerNG, it may take a bit longer as you need to ensure you're not inadvertently blocking any essential services. Despite this, the task can be managed by a single person, such as an IT manager.

Maintenance tasks, such as checking logs and ensuring updates are running smoothly, are typically handled by two designated individuals. They connect to the firewall periodically to perform these checks. While we do have a management console, it's not fully integrated with the pfSense Manager (PSM) solution. Having a dedicated management console that allows remote management of all wireless devices would be ideal, as it would streamline the process of making changes across multiple devices.

The price point is highly competitive. The cost varies depending on the license type, such as licenses for eight to five support or twenty-four seven support. Opting for twenty-four-seven support significantly increases the price, reaching around ten thousand to thirteen hundred dollars. I would rate it four out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

Our most common use cases are for our corporate firewalls, and currently, I'm using it as our school firewall. So it's our perimeter firewall. So, we're running three firewalls on our network.

So we have separate networks each because we have, like, different use cases. So we're running three at the moment.

We've been running it for six years now, and so far, it's been good.

Netgate pfSense has been utilized to create and manage VPNs within our organization. So we're running pfSense with VPN on one of our private cloud providers. So we're using IPSec VPN on that.

For everyday tasks, we just get alerts. It's anything that's suspicious, including from our Netgate. So, it's part of how we maintain cybersecurity in our school. This is working alongside our endpoint security solution.

We were using an open-source endpoint solution for that. So we're integrating that with the one we have on pfSense.

The ease of use. Like, it's easy to manage the firewall, rule-wise and interface-wise. For me, it's quite easy and friendly to use.

We have a set of rules so that it can manage all of our rules. We have a complex network here in our school. We have a lot of rules running, so it's really easy to match all of those rules using pfSense.

Integrating pfSense with other products was a bit tedious at first. We researched and tested for about a month, so it was not too hard but not instant.

For the third-party packages, I'd rather have it built-in, like a core feature of pfSense, part of the core model. This feature of pfSense would be great, instead of relying on a third-party module.

I have been using it for six years.

It's about 95% stable, not perfect, but quite reliable.

If I needed to scale it and merge our pfSense machines into one, I'd prefer a dedicated hardware appliance instead of running multiple x86 servers on the firewall.

We have around 4,000 endpoints.

I reached out to support for an unusual CPU usage issue after an upgrade. They were responsive, and even though I ultimately found a solution, they were helpful in diagnosing.

We used Fortinet. We opted for pfSense because of budget limitations. pfSense was a more affordable solution for our requirements.

pfSense is easier to manage and offers modularity for features. With FortiGate, everything is there, but we might not need everything, and too many features can be challenging.

The initial setup is very straightforward and intuitive.

We use the pfSense software directly and install it on our rack servers. So, we're adding three instances of that.

I handle all the deployment processes. I am the core manager for the entire infrastructure, so I manage and deploy everything.

I consider how many users and gigabytes we expect on the network and try it on a test network first to validate before actual deployment.

Just my core team members manage the whole deployment, so that's enough for us.

Migrating the old one to the new one took around a month because we have many rules, and the new Netgate was quite different.

From the maintenance perspective, it is not difficult at all.

While configuring or maintaining pfSense, we had high CPU usage on one firewall, but the GPAC subscription provided a good response. The support team was helpful, and we resolved it in a few hours. So, we had good support because of the support subscription.

We just have the yearly support subscription.

I just found pfSense online. I just tried it out on a home lab and found it worked well enough for us. So, just started out, like, searching online and responded and tried it.

I would advise you to try to estimate your network first and do a test network just to have a proof of concept of what you want to run and check the routes you want to run against your network, making sure that your requirements are valid before deploying it.

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

We use Netgate pfSense for load balancing.

The tools' most valuable feature is load balancing.

Netgate pfSense needs to improve the configuration for a VPN.

I have been working with the product for three months.

I rate the product's stability a nine out of ten.

I rate Netgate pfSense's scalability a seven out of ten.

I have used online documentation and hence haven't contacted the support yet.

I rate the tool's deployment a nine out of ten. Its deployment takes only a few hours to complete.

We did the deployment in-house.

I use the product's free version.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.