Cisco Meraki MX vs. pfSense

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Cisco Meraki MX
Score 9.1 out of 10
N/A
Cisco Meraki MX Firewalls is a combined UTM and Software-Defined WAN solution. Meraki is managed via the cloud, and provides core firewall services, including site-to-site VPN, plus network monitoring.
$595
per appliance
pfSense
Score 9.9 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
Pricing
Cisco Meraki MXpfSense
Editions & Modules
MX64
$595
per appliance
MX67
$695
per appliance
MX68
$995
per appliance
MX84
$1,995
per appliance
MX100
$4,995
per appliance
MX250
$9,995
per appliance
MX450
$19,995
per appliance
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
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Cisco Meraki MXpfSense
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Cisco Meraki MXpfSense
Considered Both Products
Cisco Meraki MX
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
Fortigate is almost as easy and has all the features of a traditional firewalll and more
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
We have used just regular switches with regular firewalls, third party firewalls kind of do the same thing. But the problem with that is that there's a lot of configuration to be done if IP addresses changes. But with the Meraki, I don't have that problem because it's all in …
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
Other products like Gigamon Equipment, other Cisco devices for sales providers like NCS and A SR nine K.
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
The closest thing would be just a traditional Cisco router with a DMVPN network set up, but I haven't really interacted with anything on Meraki's level. The closest thing would just be a traditional Cisco router with a VPN network.
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
Fortinet was too complicated for our needs.
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
The Cisco Meraki MX gives us more network visibility and better layer 4 and 7 network security.
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
No comparison, Cisco Meraki MX is better.
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
Cisco Meraki MX easier to deploy.
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
It shines with simplicity of Operation, but could be looked over in scenarios where more complex features are required.
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
The Meraki Dashboard has been a lot more intuitive than CradlePoint NetCloud. We switched from CradlePoint to Cisco Meraki MX because we were already familiar with the interface which allowed us to be familiar with a single dashboard.
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
The inclusion of unified threat management UTM capabilities were considered a crucial part of the deployment of this solution, which the easy cloud management permitted to build trust in a new solution that no member of the team knew, added that the Cisco is very well known and …
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
the feature rich unified threat management UTM capabilities were a crucial part of the deployment of this solution that the industry leading cloud management was an pivotal point (previously known by several members of the team), and the Cisco brand is very power full and a …
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
Cisco Meraki MX and Cato Networks both offer cloud-managed networking solutions, but they take different approaches. Meraki MX is a traditional hardware-based solution backed by Cisco's established networking expertise. It provides integrated security features, SD-WAN …
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
The top capabilities of unified threat management (utm) protects the company while maintaing costs reduced with great scalability. Cisco core values of quality and resiliency also add a part in choosing Meraki.
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
Better wholesome solution
Chose Cisco Meraki MX
The enormous difference between Catalyst and Meraki products is the granular and simple deployment. The Cisco security appliance firewall gives one and you more granular activity whereas the Cisco Meraki MX is focused on plug and play and it gets one and you going. I like …
pfSense
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 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.
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 …
Features
Cisco Meraki MXpfSense
Firewall
Comparison of Firewall features of Product A and Product B
Cisco Meraki MX
7.9
Ratings
9% below category average
pfSense
7.6
Ratings
13% below category average
Identification Technologies8.30 Ratings5.00 Ratings
Visualization Tools8.70 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Content Inspection8.10 Ratings4.00 Ratings
Policy-based Controls7.60 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Active Directory and LDAP7.90 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Firewall Management Console6.60 Ratings9.50 Ratings
Reporting and Logging7.70 Ratings8.00 Ratings
VPN8.80 Ratings10.00 Ratings
High Availability9.10 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Stateful Inspection7.40 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Proxy Server6.70 Ratings6.10 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Cisco Meraki MXpfSense
Small Businesses
pfSense
pfSense
Score 9.9 out of 10
Sophos UTM
Sophos UTM
Score 8.1 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Score 9.6 out of 10
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Quantum Firewalls and Security Gateways
Score 9.6 out of 10
Enterprises
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
Score 10.0 out of 10
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
Palo Alto Networks Virtualized Next-Generation Firewalls - VM Series
Score 10.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Cisco Meraki MXpfSense
Likelihood to Recommend
9.3
(0 ratings)
9.6
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
9.5
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Availability
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.9
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
7.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
9.1
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Cisco Meraki MXpfSense
Likelihood to Recommend
We used Meraki MX with our remote sites and connected the MX 68 to our main MX 85. We routed traffic to our enterprise network and shared application and internet access to remote sites. We have routed traffic and allow only trusted IP address sources using the firewall rules implemented in the Meraki MX. In other scenarios, if the internet is lost, the Meraki will go offline; thus, stable internet access is important to maintain connectivity
Read full review
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
Pros
  • It provides a really good single pane of glass so you can really easily identify end to end, what is going on in your environment.
  • It provides the ability for someone that doesn't necessarily need a really deep level of knowledge to be able to operate and maintain it. I think that's probably a big selling point, but I think definitely for the people that I'm selling the products who just having a dashboard and being able to log onto it and see if things are good or bad is quite key. So it does that really well.
Read full review
  • 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
Cons
  • Layer seven firewall rules. Just making them more granular. We've been in meetings with Cisco SES where I've said feature requests many times and that's one of the big ones where it's just a little cumbersome to implement layer seven rules right now.
  • Just making them more granular. We've been in meetings with Cisco SES where I've said feature requests many times and that's one of the big ones where it's just a little cumbersome to implement layer seven rules right now.
Read full review
  • 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
Likelihood to Renew
It is already in place and the client is happy with it. We don't see a need to change what is already working. We want the Meraki to stay out of the way and keep things operating, and that's what it does.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
The Cisco Meraki MX series is very easy to use. Setting up user VPN access, site to site VPN to tie multiple locations together and managing all your devices. You can even download the latest firmware and install without ever leaving the dashboard. Meraki is the very definition of easy to use
Read full review
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
Reliability and Availability
Meraki MX devices support high availability (HA) configurations, which ensures minimal downtime if one device goes offline. This feature has helped us maintain a stable and reliable network, even in cases of hardware failures. ince Meraki is cloud-managed, we've noticed that the cloud infrastructure is generally highly reliable, with minimal service interruptions or downtime. This makes it easier to manage the network remotely without significant availability concerns. Meraki automatically pushes firmware updates and patches, which helps maintain system stability without requiring manual intervention. These updates are rolled out in a manner that ensures minimal disruption to service.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Performance
The interface is pretty responsive. The lower end devices are easy to overwhelm if you have a lot of throughput. Be sure the model you get is rated for the amount of traffic you will have. Overbuild if possible, otherwise you won't be fully leveraging the connection from your ISP.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
I haven't ever had a bad experience with Meraki support. On the few occasions where I wasn't understanding the UI or needed some clarification about what a setting actually would do, I contacted them and they were very quickly able to provide help. Returns are simple and fast, too. We had to return a defective device one time and they shipped the replacement before we had even un-racked the one that was faulty. Unlike many other vendors, they didn't ask use to a do long list of scripted diagnostics, they just took my word for it that the device was broken and sent out a replacement immediately
Read full review
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
In-Person Training
great when they offered it, really tested your knowledge with hands on and see what your peers from other orgs know. glad to see that we were ahead of the curve of what our peers knew
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Online Training
it was okay as it was moderated but still better than nothing and done via semi self paced webex meeting
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
Implementing Meraki MX devices in phases—starting with a pilot group or select branch offices—was invaluable. This allowed us to identify potential configuration issues, troubleshoot problems, and refine our setup before rolling it out company-wide. It also helped to get feedback from early users and adjust the deployment strategy accordingly. The SD-WAN capabilities in Meraki MX were essential for optimizing our WAN traffic and ensuring better application performance across various locations.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
We previously evaluated WatchGuard Firebox Cloud, but we needed a solution that was a bit more straightforward to deploy and manage. The MX met that need for us. However licensing costs for both solutions are still a bit high.
Read full review
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
Scalability
When I first started with my company we had various infrastructure and a mix of tech. Since going to Cisco Meraki MX we have noticed better network performance and our new sites are much easier to bring online. Users have noticed an improvement in VPN connection and getting into all our systems.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
  • From a positive impact? Basically it allows us to set up shop very quickly. It allowed us to add sites to our network very quickly. From a negative perspective, I think the only thing is that I can see from a negative perspective is I have a preference to working with ACLI in terms of how I engage with the youth tool At the moment, the only way to actually engage with a tool is on a gui and sometimes what I'd actually like is more detailed information in terms of actual configuration that you'll actually get out of ACLI.
Read full review
  • 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
ScreenShots