Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
pfSense
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
pfSense is a firewall and load management product available through the open source pfSense Community Edition, as well as a the licensed edition, pfSense Plus (formerly known as pfSense Enterprise). The solution provides combined firewall, VPN, and router functionality, and can be deployed through the cloud (AWS or Azure), or on-premises with a Netgate appliance. It as scalable capacities, with functionality for SMBs. As a firewall, pfSense offers Stateful packet inspection, concurrent…
$179
per appliance
Sophos Firewall
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Sophos XG Firewall provides comprehensive next-generation firewall protection powered by deep learning and Synchronized Security. Sophos Firewall supplies insights and exposes hidden user, application, and threat risks on the network, and say the product is differentiated by its ability to respond automatically to security incidents by isolating compromised systems, with Security Heartbeat™.N/A
Windows Server
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
N/AN/A
Pricing
pfSenseSophos FirewallWindows Server
Editions & Modules
SG-1100
$179
per appliance
SG-2100
$229
per appliance
SG-3100
$399
per appliance
SG-5100
$699
per appliance
XG-7100-DT
$899
per appliance
XG-7100-1U
$999
per appliance
XG-1537
$1,949
per appliance
XG-1541
$2,649
per appliance
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
pfSenseSophos FirewallWindows Server
Free Trial
NoYesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
pfSenseSophos FirewallWindows Server
Considered Multiple Products
pfSense
Chose pfSense
Both products listed above, are very great solutions, but payed ones. If you are looking for open source firewall solution, pfSense is the one. Based on FreeBSD, it has strong security features and is very easy to deploy, configure and manage. pfSense also plays network simple …
Chose pfSense
PFSense is not a fully featured and supported enterprise-grade solution; however, it does offer a lot of similar functionality at a fraction of the cost for more minor requirements.
Chose pfSense
Fortigate offers an extensive set of features including the Unified Threat Management and a lot of FortiGuard services . pfSense is extremely modular, probably because of its open source "flavour"m but relies on community support. Fortinet ROI depends on the reduced …
Chose pfSense
pfSense always wins in the licensing realm. It requires little or no licensing to run and run forever. No ids/ips licensing, no advanced feature license, no remote access licensing. Download the community edition or buy the Netgate hardware and you are set going forward. There …
Chose pfSense
PfSense beats all other solutions at its price point, hands-down. You can get more features with far less performance, or same performance for much higher cost.
Chose pfSense
pfSense does almost all what the other brands do and the CE Edition is free even if complete.
Chose pfSense
Meraki has a unified management login for all devices, which is nice. It also has decent content filtering, both areas where pfSense is weaker.

Where pfSense far ouclasses Meraki is in the ease of use and the other width of features. These include features such as better VPN …
Chose pfSense
Overall, pfSense is the most complete solution in terms of features included even though it currently lack of a centralised management interface.The Ubiquiti firewall offering is often appealing being well integrated within the Ubiquiti dashboard and it is often a solution of …
Chose pfSense
We were using Sophos XG Firewall in our environment before but we need a product that is customizable & provides low cost high security features. pfSense provided us high security features with customizable options as it's kernel is based on freeBSD.
Chose pfSense
We were using Sophos XG firewall in our environment but when it comes to cost it's more expensive with limited features. After using [pfSense] we are getting more security features at less cost. After pfSense provides a bundle of security features such as anti-spamming, …
Chose pfSense
pfSense offers more options and scales very easily.
Chose pfSense
pfSense is just a more flexible, lower-cost solution—it can be installed (if you wish) on just about any x86 hardware or even virtual machines - the community edition is free and so enables rapid prototyping and low-cost prototyping and lab build out—something that isn't …
Chose pfSense
pfSense is a lot cheaper and has higher firewall throughput per dollar than "enterprise" network appliances. It's also significantly easier to configure and learn. It may not have some of the "enterprise" features or the support level that someone like Cisco has, but for small …
Chose pfSense
pfSense itself is free and can be installed on just about any hardware so from a hardware cost perspective it can beat out anybody. In terms of features it's above many pro-sumer/small business solutions like Ubiquiti. It can't really stand against high-end gear like Cisco but …
Chose pfSense
First of all, I don't need to be a Cisco professional to manage VPN, load balance, multiple WAN/LAN, Firewall and etc. pfSense has an easy-to-use web interface and I can do everything and add packaged add-on services. Moreover, for Small & Medium Enterprise, IT budget is …
Chose pfSense
Pfsense seemed to always be cheaper and just as good as its competitors.
Chose pfSense
I have not seen a single thing that these other products do that pfSense does not. In fact, the performance/throughput of pfSense is better in my opinion.
Chose pfSense
While you can get the performance out of other products, pfSense offers the unique ability to put other services on the same device. Products such as Untagle's NG Firewall and SonicWall's TZ series offer cost effective options for firewall and VPN services, having incoming load …
Chose pfSense
pfSense is a new and innovative platform that has learned from the errors of older systems, which helps it cover the needs that aren't covered by Smoothwall.

Chose pfSense
Before pfSense we were using consumer and small business rated network appliances from Linksys, Cisco, Buffalo and Netgear. We were replacing them on average of every 6-12 months because they'd fail or would offer poor wifi availability.

Switching to pfSense allowed us to use …
Chose pfSense
It's an open source solution can support from 50 to 700 user without sweating and with the half of the standard bundle investment that will take to deploy a Fortigate UTM, or a Cisco ASA, also a Sophos UTM that are quite remarkable units but to pFSense saves you money and will …
Chose pfSense
Real competition was between Pfsense and OpnSense that integrates first the bootstrap Twitter framework. But with OpSense there are configurations that create some problems with a specific client (we've experienced that by creating an IPSec tunnel both with OpSense and …
Chose pfSense
I've used a number of routers like Cisco, Sonicwall, Juniper, Home based routers, etc. pfSense is like most routers but with the benefit of load balancing and multi-wan. Well many support multi-wan but load balancing is usually a separate device like an BIGiP F5 or Cisco CSS.
Sophos Firewall
Chose Sophos Firewall
Since we already utilize the Sophos Endpoint and its tight integration into their firewall, it was a no brainer to go with it.
Chose Sophos Firewall
Very simple to manage, several features, and a report included.
Chose Sophos Firewall
We decided to use Sophos XG Firewall because it is a reliable and reputed cybersecurity product.
Chose Sophos Firewall
We selected the Sophos Firewall because of its comprehensive security, ease of use, Scalability and increase the productivity.
Chose Sophos Firewall
We have been a Sophos customer for the most part but i have seen some other offerings from SonicWall, Barracuda, and Cisco. While they all offer nice products, we've always been content with our Sophos XG firewalls, especially as they release more and more features/etc.
Chose Sophos Firewall
I was a big fan of Cisco ASA products, but when I saw all of the security feature differences between both firewalls, I moved to Sophos devices. Its sandbox, IPS, and many more features are really advanced. Cisco does not provide features like this.
Chose Sophos Firewall
Cisco ASA is not [a] true next generation firewall if you want to protect from 7 layers and malware attacks then you need firepower services but this service is very costly. In Sophos all the advanced security features are [less] cost[ly].
Chose Sophos Firewall
Sophos XG Firewall provides easy integration with Active directory & LDAP Servers so that we can implement single sign on (SSO) for users. Also the content filtering & inspection feature protect us from bad actors.
Chose Sophos Firewall
The firewall that was in use at the first location before expanding was a cheaply made open source box that couldn't do much even as a basic firewall. We had looked at various companies but came to the conclusion that Sophos was the right fit for us and it has been that way for …
Chose Sophos Firewall
It is to very little surprise that we selected Sophos UTM at our first use. Then, we upgraded to XG Firewall and the operation is very smoothly done.
Windows Server
Chose Windows Server
I find Microsoft Windows Server is a much easier OS to deploy and administer. It does require more resources to run, requires more security updates and overall has a larger footprint. Rebooting the Windows Server takes a much longer time than RHEL for example. An administration …
Chose Windows Server
Windows Server blows any of the Linux flavors I've used out of the water. Even after gaining experience with Linux, I'm able to achieve the same results in Windows Server from a command line much quicker than in Linux simply because Windows Server, especially with the …
Chose Windows Server
Familiar interface thus easy to adopt. Licensing costs are better than other commercial virtualization vendors at least for our hardware/needs.
Chose Windows Server
Windows Server is much easier to work with and it's widely adopted. It have a lot of features and a nice gui.
In the other hand linux systems are more robust and often more secure , but the learning curve and technician needed for it are much higher. Depend on the usage you got …
Chose Windows Server
They are different experiences, and while the other solutions offer enterprise-grade stability and, in some cases, address Windows server shortcomings (such as patching), they all do the trick, but the other solutions require a deeper technical background/configuration of items …
Chose Windows Server
More user friendly and Graphical user interface is extreme compared to linux
Chose Windows Server
It is really all about application support. The only option we really have is Windows Server, and where we can choose we continue to use it for consistency as well as compatibility with the systems where we are forced to use Windows Server).
Chose Windows Server
We've utilized docker and debian for very specific applications and they have been useful - overall Windows Server provides a better package. I would choose VMware ESXi over Windows Server for virtualization as it's far more reliable in our experience. I can't imagine using a …
Chose Windows Server
There are plenty of other server solutions out there which may be better suited for certain tasks, but Windows Server is the way to get a Windows environment going. For simple setups, there are many alternatives, but often there are key features lacking, or a restriction on …
Chose Windows Server
Windows Server is more cost-effective and skills are easier to find to support the products. The deployment and management of the product can be automated with Microsoft SCCM. In my opinion, Linux seems to be more secured but takes more time and effort to learn than Windows …
Chose Windows Server
These are just very different products. They can all have the same functionality but the specific product knowledge with Linux is much higher. This slows down troubleshooting and can leave you with limited options for high end support. There are absolutely good use cases for …
Chose Windows Server
We have been using Microsoft products for the last 15+ years and following are key point for choosing this solution:
  • Trust & reliability of products.
  • Customer support.
Chose Windows Server
I didn't use any other system which gives the same functionality and I am not aware of any. The full integration between all components and especially the ability to integrate mail via Exchange or even via a hybrid setup with the Ofice365 cloud, including the ability to …
Chose Windows Server
For our more experienced users and for simple web apps we will go the RHEL route but with Windows Server such an industry standard the the ease of use of the GUI it just makes more sense for most applications that use it. It also generally has a lot more interoperability …
Chose Windows Server
Linux is great, but support is harder to come by. You also need to pay linux admins more as it is a much smaller group of people that can support it. Windows is the industry standard with the most support available. Going with another platform just didn't seem to make sense …
Chose Windows Server
I have some basic experience using various builds of Linux and have always found myself coming back to Windows. Perhaps after years of working with Microsoft products they all have a similar feel and configuration options. Microsoft products are my typical first choice where …
Chose Windows Server
We have various servers or appliances that run on various flavors of Linux that do their jobs well, but we configure and manage them very lightly at the OS level. Most of the admin on these devices is sone inside the applications themselves. We don't shy away from new …
Chose Windows Server
All the other products I have used in the past OS2 servers, Novell Netware, Banyan Vines etc don't show up in the search list, which i guess goes to show that the best wins.
Chose Windows Server
I have used/administered several servers using systems like Ubuntu, Debian, and CentOS. While these systems are great in their own rights, you are typically using a command-line interface or shell in order to administrate the system. This requires a lot of commands to be …
Chose Windows Server
For our purposes it came down to picking between Windows and Linux and at the end of the day we picked both. We use Windows for 80% of our server needs to run our Web, File, Print, DHCP, Internal DNS, Active Directory, SQL, Web and other windows based servers. We use linux …
Chose Windows Server
Windows Server has become one of the industry standards for providing file and directory services for the majority of users because of the ease with which it interacts with the common desktop OS, as opposed to needing to provide esoteric support for users to be able to work …
Chose Windows Server
About any linux distro can be setup to handle services that a Windows Server can do, except I have not personally found anything nearly as convenient of a replacement for Active Directory, Group Policy, or an RD Gateway. There are alternatives to those services, they just …
Chose Windows Server
Windows Server is by far the easiest server option to get started with because they offer the same kind of interface with windows that most users are already familiar with. Plus, it's the most graphically friendly option, so it is easy to navigate. Lastly, it is the most …
Features
pfSenseSophos FirewallWindows Server
Firewall
Comparison of Firewall features of Product A and Product B
pfSense
8.9
Ratings
3% above category average
Sophos Firewall
9.3
Ratings
8% above category average
Windows Server
-
Ratings
Identification Technologies8.70 Ratings9.30 Ratings00 Ratings
Visualization Tools8.70 Ratings9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Content Inspection9.20 Ratings9.30 Ratings00 Ratings
Policy-based Controls8.60 Ratings9.40 Ratings00 Ratings
Active Directory and LDAP7.70 Ratings9.40 Ratings00 Ratings
Firewall Management Console9.50 Ratings9.70 Ratings00 Ratings
Reporting and Logging8.40 Ratings9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
VPN9.10 Ratings8.80 Ratings00 Ratings
High Availability9.40 Ratings9.40 Ratings00 Ratings
Stateful Inspection10.00 Ratings9.30 Ratings00 Ratings
Proxy Server8.30 Ratings9.60 Ratings00 Ratings
Operating System
Comparison of Operating System features of Product A and Product B
pfSense
-
Ratings
Sophos Firewall
-
Ratings
Windows Server
7.8
Ratings
9% below category average
File Management00 Ratings00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Software Application Management00 Ratings00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
System Update Frequency00 Ratings00 Ratings6.60 Ratings
Operating System Security00 Ratings00 Ratings7.60 Ratings
Best Alternatives
pfSenseSophos FirewallWindows Server
Small Businesses
Sophos UTM
Sophos UTM
Score 8.5 out of 10
pfSense
pfSense
Score 8.5 out of 10
Ubuntu
Ubuntu
Score 8.5 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Score 9.1 out of 10
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Score 9.1 out of 10
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
Score 9.1 out of 10
Enterprises
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
Score 9.1 out of 10
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
Score 9.1 out of 10
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
Score 9.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
pfSenseSophos FirewallWindows Server
Likelihood to Recommend
9.3
(0 ratings)
9.6
(0 ratings)
9.2
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.7
(0 ratings)
9.7
(0 ratings)
9.2
(0 ratings)
Availability
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
5.5
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
10.0
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
6.4
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Configurability
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
9.1
(0 ratings)
Vendor post-sale
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
pfSenseSophos FirewallWindows Server
Likelihood to Recommend
pfSense is incredibly budget friendly and capable for organizations of all sizes. My specific scenario, working for a non-profit organization, requires budget consciences decisions without compromising security and function. pfSense has helped tremendously in accomplishing this. It specifically tackles advanced routing, static routing, remote access, intrusion prevention, in a single platform, mostly available for free.
Read full review
It is well-suited for small, medium, and large organizations looking for comprehensive cybersecurity protection. It will not only safeguard their network from cyberattacks but also provide them with many advanced features like deep packet inspection, centralized management, web filtering, application control, etc. in one place. It will help them optimize bandwidth and ensure continued connectivity.
Read full review
Anytime I need a server for something, whether to test a new platform or app, devote a server to hosting something, etc., Windows Server is my go-to choice. Recently I needed a new server to host a web server and web application, so I spun up a Windows Server 2025 VM and was up and running in no time at all.
Read full review
Pros
  • Easy to use. Good user interface design! Easy to understand and easy to set up.
  • Lower hardware requirement. 3 years ago, we used an old PC to run it. Now, we have changed to a router device with Celeron CPU and 8GB RAM. It runs smoothly with a 1000G commercial broadband.
Read full review
  • Web filtering. This allows us to monitor web usage and block certain categories from being access at the perimeter.
  • Application Control. With application control we can block certain applications that get categorized from working accessing the Internet.
  • Synchronized Security. When utilizing the Sophos Endpoint product you can use Synchronized Security to minimize Lateral Movement in a network. If a machine is shows a Red status you can auto-isolate it and it is unable to communicate with anything else on the network.
Read full review
  • Backup of workstations & itself - reliably, consistently, with Bare-Metal Restore and deduplication
  • File management and Security on a per file/folder/user basis is simple and fully done through an easy GUI
  • DNS, DHCP server functions are easy to configure using the built-in GUI
Read full review
Cons
  • There is no API for making changes. This can be a hindrance in environments where auto-deploying something needs firewall rules or HAProxy configs updated. Since all settings are stored in an XML file and then configs are generated from that, even manually updating config files cannot be done.
  • Beware that some network cards can have issues. pfSense is based on FreeBSD, so it's best to look on their compatibility list before deploying.
Read full review
  • If using Endpoint security and the Firewall it would be nice to have an easier back and forth between the portals rather than have two separate tabs open. Especially if using more than one in multiple locations.
  • If dealing with different revisions options are moved around and sometimes in places that doesn't normally seem like they should be there.
Read full review
  • Microsoft needs to minimize the update frequency by making the product more secure. It can become very exhausting trying to keep updated if you don't have a dedicated support team. It can become challenging where the business is unable to allow downtime for reboots as part of the update process.
  • Prone to security and audit vulnerabilities.
  • The operating system needs more CPU and memory resources compared to other options such as Linux.
  • Understanding the licensing model can be abit confusing.
  • Comes with a standard firewall, but not the most secured one available. Would suggest using a more secured firewall as part of your antivirus software.
  • Due to the number of vulnerabilities and the operating system being a target for hackers, anti-virus software is a must.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
I've carefully reviewed the servers and services currently running on Windows Server 2012, and given the opportunity would renew them as is going forward. There are two systems I currently have in place, one is a very large Linux implementation for a large ecommerce site, and one is a very large backup solution front ended by FTP servers running Linux. Neither are well suited for Windows, but the overall network infrastructure is and will be Windows Server for the foreseeable future.
Read full review
Usability
pfSense can be a very elementary firewall but can also be as comples as you want, according your needs. I'd always reccomend a HA solution when used in a company and, for bigger companies, commercial license is recommended. It's also very adptable to everyone's needs.
Read full review
Because this is a user-friendly interface, and anyone can use it there are multiple articles and guidelines available, it has advanced-level security features. they provide VPN solutions all the features are very practical, SSID MAC-based authentications web control, Firewall rules segregation of the rules and policies, On-premises Active directory single sign-on feature is also available.
Read full review
There are simply too many different parts of Windows Server to make it a cohesive piece of software. While some of the newer features found in Windows Server 2012 and 2016 have nice UIs that are logically laid out, there are enough parts of the system that is still based on old code with clunky UIs and confusing options to make Windows Server a particularly user-friendly experience.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
some times server hungs and user sessions were busy to connect
Read full review
Performance
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
need to improve the performance more
Read full review
Support Rating
pfSense+ basic provides "As Available" email support. pfSense+ Pro offers 24 hr turn around email support. pfSense+ Enterprise offers 24/7 phone support.
Read full review
As we are all addicted to graphics-oriented interfaces for all our life products. Easy to manage and access as a good way of using anything
Read full review
Microsoft's support is hugely wide-ranging from articles online to having to contact them directly for the more serious issues. In recent years when I have contacted them directly, I have found the support o be excellent as I have found myself connected to very knowledgeable people in the field in which I needed the support. The online support available is vast and I tend to find most of the time that there is always someone out there who has had the same issue as me in the past and knows something about how to resolve it! This is the advantage of using industry standard and long-established systems such as Windows Server.
Read full review
In-Person Training
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
it was my senior who trained Windows Server features and i was satisfied
Read full review
Online Training
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
it was recorded session and useful
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Make sure that you have detailed processes in place for every server instance you plan to install/upgrade, if possible get the base OS loaded and Windows Updates applied ahead of time, and if using a VM take a snapshot prior to installing each role, as well as along the way.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
PFSense is not a fully featured and supported enterprise-grade solution; however, it does offer a lot of similar functionality at a fraction of the cost for more minor requirements.
Read full review
I was a big fan of Cisco ASA products, but when I saw all of the security feature differences between both firewalls, I moved to Sophos devices. Its sandbox, IPS, and many more features are really advanced. Cisco does not provide features like this.
Read full review
I find Microsoft Windows Server is a much easier OS to deploy and administer. It does require more resources to run, requires more security updates and overall has a larger footprint. Rebooting the Windows Server takes a much longer time than RHEL for example. An administration task such as expanding a drive in Windows can be very simple, however in RHEL it is not.
Read full review
Scalability
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
yes i completely agree multi deployment
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • pfSense has only had positive impacts on our company. We are not a huge company so not having to buy licenses to get all these features have been excellent.
  • I was not around when our current sysadmin decided to use pfSense, but I am assuming from day one it was probably a 100% return on investment since it does everything we need it to and it was open source software.
Read full review
  • True UTM device.
  • Very Active customer help for any help.
  • Easy license and cost effective.
  • Should [do] more work on logging and reporting.
Read full review
  • Support for a wide range of applications (compatibility) This is especially valuable.
  • The cost of licensing is significantly higher than that of many competing solutions, which means the justification has to be more complete.
  • The initial environment setup with full organization management provides a complete solution set to get started.
  • Patching/Frequent updates disruptive nature must be accepted.
Read full review
ScreenShots

Sophos Firewall Screenshots

Screenshot of Sophos Firewall v17.5 Control Center