I've been tasked with setting up a new firewall for a small, cost-sensitive team. The two finalists are a hardware appliance (WatchGuard Firebox T15/T35) versus a roll-your-own option (Netgate 1100/2100 running pfSense). I'm looking at this from a total cost of ownership perspective over a 3-year period.
**Initial & Recurring Costs:**
* **WatchGuard:** Higher upfront hardware cost (~$500-$1200). Requires an annual Basic Security Suite (BSS) subscription for IPS, AV, etc. (~$150-$400/yr). All-in cost over 3 years is easily $1k-$2.5k.
* **Netgate pfSense:** Lower hardware cost (~$200-$600). Netgate's own appliances include a TAC support subscription. The pfSense Plus software itself is free for the Netgate hardware, with commercial support optional. No mandatory annual fee for core features.
**Operational & Architectural Analysis:**
* **Management:** WatchGuard offers a unified, GUI-driven workflow. pfSense is highly flexible but requires more networking knowledge to configure advanced states.
* **Feature Set:** For a 10-person team, both offer essential firewall, VPN (IPsec/OpenVPN), and basic threat prevention. WatchGuard's subscription services (like Gateway AV) are integrated. With pfSense, you'd rely on open-source packages (Snort, Suricata) or commercial add-ons, which changes the operational overhead.
* **Rightsizing:** The T15 might suffice, but I'm concerned about throughput with all services enabled. The Netgate 1100 has similar constraints. The T35/2100 tier feels more future-proof.
The core question is whether the integrated, subscription-based model of WatchGuard provides enough operational efficiency to justify its higher TCO for a small team, or if the leaner, upfront pfSense model on Netgate hardware is the smarter financial play, accepting a bit more hands-on configuration.
Has anyone here run a direct comparison in a similar environment? I'm particularly interested in real-world throughput with services enabled and any hidden support or renewal pitfalls.
Show me the bill.