We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiClient and Fortinet FortiNAC based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"The stability is very good."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"It is stable and scalable."
"Impressive detection capabilities"
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"This is stable and scalable."
"It is very easy and useful. A normal user with basic information can easily connect to any environment."
"The VPN connection is the feature that I like the most."
"What I find valuable in FortiClient is its patch management capabilities, allowing remote updates efficiently."
"From Forticlient, the EMS, the central management is easy to use."
"It’s easy to use."
"FortiClient's most valuable features are that it's fast and safe."
"The VPN has proven to be quite useful."
"I find it very easy to configure and also very stable."
"FortiNAC has enhanced our network visibility because FortiNAC monitors MAC addresses and other network devices, like Cisco, Catalyst, or HPE switches."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the user-friendliness, the graphical interface, and the technical support. The interface is very nice and the customization is good."
"The device fingerprinting feature allowed for easy creation and enforcement of access policies."
"The support responds to our queries within two to four hours."
"The ease of deployment is valuable."
"It is a good product."
"The features are more expandable."
"When it works, it's great. It keeps things off the network which are supposed to be off the network."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"The solution is not stable."
"The support needs improvement."
"Integration with Azure and SaaS provisioning tools could improve Fortinet FortiEDR."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"The EDR console should have more extensive reporting. You shouldn't need to purchase FortiAnalyzer. It should be included in the EDR part. The security adviser cloud platform could be improved with more options for exclusive or intensive rules for devices."
"To improve Fortinet, we need to see more features and technology areas at the endpoint level introduced."
"Its stability can be improved. It is not as reliable as I would like it to be. There are times when things don't work quite right. Our biggest pain point is not related to Fortinet FortiClient and the whole scheme of things. It is related to one of the additional services called FortiGuard. They are the arm that does all of the updates to definitions, keeps all the signatures updated, and responds to new threats and whatnot. What we have found is that they react quickly, but sometimes their solutions aren't compatible with all of the components of the Fortinet security suite, specifically around FortiSandbox."
"The user interface on the central server could be improved."
"It would be interesting if the solution offered a way to try to investigate and create a use case to trace vectors."
"The product's performance and pricing could be better."
"The solution could be more secure. I would like to see more safety features."
"The tool needs to improve its web filtering feature. Its support quality needs improvement. We speak different languages, and this can create misunderstandings."
"The software inventory part is not yet up-to-date. It doesn't have a great interface, which is a disadvantage. I wish we could leverage it, but we don't use it at all because it's not that reliable."
"For buying or deploying it with additional features, apart from VPN client, web security, or antivirus, I would like to see the USB key blocking function included in this solution for endpoint security. For endpoint security, you need antivirus and all of the features included in antivirus software these days, web security, and USB key locking feature. If it is implemented in a way that in one package, you have all the primary features needed for security these days, it would be nice. All of those features will probably be additionally charged as it is a web security feature on FortiClient."
"Admin UI could be better matched and easier to use; it cannot work as a RADIUS server."
"The implementation process needs improvement. Right now, it's somewhat complicated. They could create some templates to facilitate implementation. Right now everything is done manually, and it just takes a really long time at the initial setup."
"Our users have been asking for simpler documentation and training materials to facilitate the deployment process."
"I hope that Fortinet can add a feature with a remediation mechanism when you find a broken piece so that you can click on something and download the needed update or resolve the firewall issue more easily. Currently, we have to use an external remediation server to download updates."
"There could be better integration with legacy equipment. It integrates perfectly with all Fortinet solutions, but if you look at other third-party integrations—not on the networking part; but more on the security infrastructure part—it's more limited."
"Integration is hard in Fortinet FortiNAC, but they are evolving and getting better. For example, with Cisco, Aruba, Huawei, and Extreme devices, Fortinet FortiNAC is working properly, but some other devices have problems."
"The product could be more user-friendly in terms of GUI."
"The reporting can also use improvement."
Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 86 reviews while Fortinet FortiNAC is ranked 4th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 44 reviews. Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0, while Fortinet FortiNAC is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiClient writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly with good support ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Fortinet FortiNAC writes "I like the solution's native integration with other devices from the same vendor". Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business and Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway, whereas Fortinet FortiNAC is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform, Fortinet FortiAuthenticator and Portnox CORE. See our Fortinet FortiClient vs. Fortinet FortiNAC report.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.