Reviews of FoxFilter

By: Inspired Effect Add-on

List of user reviews and ratings for FoxFilter

Total ratings

3.90 (Rating count: 72)

Receive review notifications

Get notified when new reviews are posted so you can respond quickly.

See reviews on Firefox Add-ons Store

View and respond to reviews directly on the store page.

Visit

Review summary

Reviews show FoxFilter as a mixed bag. Some users praise reliable filtering and easy, centralized management, especially for parental control and when hosts modification isn’t possible. However, many reports highlight major drawbacks: paywalls that hide features, over-blocking even legitimate sites, inconvenient or blocked access to settings, and inconsistent filtering with false positives/negatives. Password protection is also considered weak or easily bypassed. Overall sentiment skews negative due to monetization and blocking issues, despite some usable aspects.

Pros

Reliable content filtering that works as expected.
Easy to install and manage from one place.
Useful when you can’t modify hosts file or rely on system-wide filtering.
Good for parental controls / kids' computers.

Cons

Many features and options are behind a paywall above the basic functionality.
Over-blocks content, blocking many sites and even legitimate ones.
Access to extension settings is restricted or requires awkward workarounds.
Filtering accuracy is inconsistent with false positives/negatives and meta-tag gaps.
Password protection features are weak or easily bypassed.

Upgrade to see all 88 reviews

User Reviews

Recent rating average: 3.10

All time rating average: 3.90

Upgrade to see all 88 reviews

25% (22)

Date	Author	Comment
2026-03-01	Fi*****	This is a very useful extension for filtering content and websites, especially useful if you don't have root or administrator rights to change the "hosts" file. But when a warning tab appears, it opens on top of the previously opened one, for example Google, and the second one opens, the one that caused the extension warning. Unfortunately, some convenient options require a paid subscription.
This is a very useful extension for filtering content and websites, especially useful if you don't have root or administrator rights to change the "hosts" file. But when a warning tab appears, it opens on top of the previously opened one, for example Google, and the second one opens, the one that caused the extension warning. Unfortunately, some convenient options require a paid subscription.
2026-01-15	Ro*****	Scummy creator can't stand letting me keep my money. This blocks the extentions settings in firefox, with no way to prevent the block without paying money. Sure, you can enter the code to get in, but the fact it's not optional says everything you need to know. If you like wasting money on someone who's knowingly taking advantage of your addiction, buy it. Otherwise, find another way.
Scummy creator can't stand letting me keep my money. This blocks the extentions settings in firefox, with no way to prevent the block without paying money. Sure, you can enter the code to get in, but the fact it's not optional says everything you need to know. If you like wasting money on someone who's knowingly taking advantage of your addiction, buy it. Otherwise, find another way.
2025-11-19	*****	Terrible. I've just wasted 12 USD. Basically, you won't be able to open 90% of websites at all, not even the adds on page on Firefox. I couldn't open Reddit, but then it allowed Ads pop up windows on a website where I wanted to block ALL of them, cause many are awfully pornographic. A fantastic result. Thank you.
Terrible. I've just wasted 12 USD. Basically, you won't be able to open 90% of websites at all, not even the adds on page on Firefox. I couldn't open Reddit, but then it allowed Ads pop up windows on a website where I wanted to block ALL of them, cause many are awfully pornographic. A fantastic result. Thank you.
2025-09-04	Fi*****	Blocks more than it says it will. Even blocks appropriate sites and the ability to uninstall it which is against FF ad-on policy.
Blocks more than it says it will. Even blocks appropriate sites and the ability to uninstall it which is against FF ad-on policy.
2025-08-18	Ps*****	Hello, I'm currently testing parental control systems to see which adult content tagging systems they respect. Even with "Examine Meta Content" turned on in the sensitivity settings, this extension fails to block websites based on various meta tags used by adult websites to identify themselves as such. I've tested the following meta tags in use by adult websites and none of them cause the page to be blocked: <meta name="rating" content="adult" /> <meta name="rating" content="mature" /> <meta name="RATING" content="RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA" /> <meta name="rating" content="RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA" /> This let me access at least two websites and various twitter accounts with explicit pornographic content which would otherwise have been blocked. Also, all adult sites I've checked so far include at least one of these tags.
Hello, I'm currently testing parental control systems to see which adult content tagging systems they respect. Even with "Examine Meta Content" turned on in the sensitivity settings, this extension fails to block websites based on various meta tags used by adult websites to identify themselves as such. I've tested the following meta tags in use by adult websites and none of them cause the page to be blocked: <meta name="rating" content="adult" /> <meta name="rating" content="mature" /> <meta name="RATING" content="RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA" /> <meta name="rating" content="RTA-5042-1996-1400-1577-RTA" /> This let me access at least two websites and various twitter accounts with explicit pornographic content which would otherwise have been blocked. Also, all adult sites I've checked so far include at least one of these tags.
2025-08-08	Ku*****

2025-07-18	HD*****

2025-06-14	Ma*****

2025-05-04	Fi*****

2025-04-15	Fi*****