We performed a comparison between Fortinet Fortigate vs. WatchGuard Firebox based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Fortinet FortiGate came out ahead of WatchGuard because of its stronger support and better pricing.
"The technical support is great."
"It does a lot for you for intrusion protection and as an antivirus. The threat management bundle is worth the money. You don't need another company to monitor your web traffic for you. You can do everything yourself on the firewall. You restrict your own black list for people on the firewall. You don't need to pay some other company for another product to do that for you. The firewall can do that for you. So, it's an easy-to-use product for people to be independent. They don't need to rely on other vendors to do what the firewall can do. They can do everything."
"You can purchase switches and you don't need to do anything with them. You just put in the firewall and the switches get all the policies and rules that you already have in the firewall. With Fortinet, you just connect the FortiSwitch to the Fortinet and that's it."
"Initial setup is easy to configure."
"The IPsec tunnels are very easily created, and quite interoperable with devices from other vendors."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration."
"The main reason why I purchased the particular unit was that it had good reviews and what other people were saying as far as its completeness and its leading capabilities in terms of endpoint security was very good."
"The secure web gateway module and the application control module are valuable. HA operations are very easy."
"One of my favorite features is the Geolocation service, where you can actually block specific activity or IP addresses registered to certain countries. For example, I don't want any web traffic from Russia or North Korea. I may even lock down certain policies down to 'I only want U.S. IP addresses.' I find that very useful."
"The solution simplifies my business. Normally, for administration, we are using NetApp System Manager on Window since it's easy to create new policies. In a short amount of time, you can create new policies based on new requirements. For example, in the last few months, many requirements changed due to the coronavirus, adding the use of new services, like Office 365, and eLearning tools, like Zoom."
"The ports that I have assigned appear to be unattainable to outside 'mal-actors,' unless they have an address registered on the internet that this thing is expecting. That's a layer of security."
"I like their management features a lot. Their System Manager server as well the System Manager software make managing them, and tracking changes, very easy and complete."
"The client is easy to use and stable"
"The most valuable feature of WatchGuard Firebox is the VPN. It's easy to connect to the VPN."
"As a whole, it has a very low requirement for ongoing interaction. It's very self-sufficient. If properly patched, it has very high reliability. The total cost of ownership once deployed is very low."
"They've done a lot of work with their SD-WAN, which we do use, to have our old internet service with our new internet service. If anything goes down on a particular interface, I can have different rules applied. Most of my users don't even know when our primary internet goes down anymore... I don't have to be here to do anything to switch it to our backup internet or to switch it back."
"Technical support is good but the response time could be faster."
"The search tool needs improvement. It's very difficult to search for policies right now."
"Its reporting capabilities can be improved. It should have some out-of-the-box reporting capabilities and some degree of customization. The basic reporting that it currently has is not sufficient to create more usable reports. It needs some sort of out-of-the-box reporting. They try to make customers purchase FortiAnalyzer for this kind of reporting, which is an additional cost. Other firewall vendors, such as SonicWall and Sophos, provide this sort of reporting without any additional cost."
"Security is a continuous process. In every product, there is a requirement for improvement. Its pricing should also be improved according to Indian market requirements. They must also improve on the reporting part. Its reporting can be more precise. If we can get a real-time report in a specific format, it will be helpful for customers to know about the current status of their security."
"There are some tiny bugs that sometimes affect the operations. In the past revision of it, there was a bug. Because of the bug, we had to downgrade the version. It happened only with the last revision."
"Backup can be improved."
"It is very expensive, and their support is not very good. I hope that their technical support will be better in the future."
"I would like to see more advanced developments of a wireless controller in the future."
"The solution can improve by adding a feature to tag a MAC address of a computer system in the policy and more IP configuration settings."
"It's very hard to get information from their website, for exactly what I need to do. Sometimes I end up having to open a lot of support tickets... It's a navigational issue which makes it hard to find what I'm looking for and it's just so broad."
"The UI is not as user-friendly as the model that I had used before, which was from Check Point. The design of the Firebox UI is restricted and needs an experienced network guy to understand the format and settings."
"Sometimes I would like to copy a rule set from one box to another box in a direct way. This is a feature that is not present at the moment in WatchGuard."
"The UI and web view aren't nice."
"WatchGuard Firebox could improve the speed of updates, such as new features or improvements. However, they are frequently improving the solution in many areas, such as geo-locations, definitions, and web blocking."
"I would like to see the devices made more flexible by adding modules to increase the ports that we can use."
"We bought Firebox four or five years ago, and with the first version I had to reboot it every two or three months for no apparent reason. We upgraded last year to the M370 and it's been running, but it is rebooting from time to time. I don't know why."
Fortinet FortiGate is ranked 2nd in Firewalls with 306 reviews while WatchGuard Firebox is ranked 13th in Firewalls with 79 reviews. Fortinet FortiGate is rated 8.4, while WatchGuard Firebox is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiGate writes "It's a reliable solution that's easy to install and cheaper than competitors ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of WatchGuard Firebox writes "Offers a streamlined deployment, intuitive interface and robust security features". Fortinet FortiGate is most compared with Sophos XG, Cisco Secure Firewall, Netgate pfSense, Meraki MX and Check Point NGFW, whereas WatchGuard Firebox is most compared with Netgate pfSense, Sophos XG, OPNsense, SonicWall TZ and Meraki MX. See our Fortinet FortiGate vs. WatchGuard Firebox report.
See our list of best Firewalls vendors and best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls 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.
Even though my experience with FortiGate products has been mostly positive, I am partial to the WatchGuard appliances. I find the FortiGate interface a bit odd. For example, some of the wizards within the interface make me feel like it is more of a consumer device, even though I know it is a very capable appliance. The WatchGuard interface is more complicated, but it is also more capable. I also find that the UTM features within the FortiGate products lack some of the granular control available with WatchGuard.
I believe WatchGuard is the better choice regarding the quality of support, available documentation, and training resources.
I see that another reviewer indicated that WatchGuard lacked application control features. That is incorrect. Although I do not use this feature in any of my environments, I assure you that the features are available, and my testing has shown it to be capable.
WatchGuard appliances also can integrate their endpoint Threat Detection and Response client to an environment for a correlated view of the environment.
WatchGuard also offers multiple methods for managing an appliance. Although the GUI is very capable, I am not a fan of live changes to an appliance. There are instances when multiple changes must be made to achieve the desired outcome. When these circumstances arise, the WatchGuard Policy Manager software allows you to deploy multiple changes at once while maintaining an OH SH!T copy that you can quickly redeploy if you happen to make a mistake.
When it hits the fan, and you must troubleshoot an appliance issue, WatchGuard is far superior to any firewall I have worked with, including Fortigate. The ability to quickly and easily adjust the policies' order of precedence is a huge advantage and can often save a great deal of time troubleshooting.
Please do not take this as a negative review of FortiGate products. I am only speaking about firewalls. I have not used any of the other FortiGate products. I am strictly speaking of my experience deploying and managing FortiGate and WatchGuard firewalls. From my experience, I find the WatchGuard a superior product.
As a Managed Service Provider, our preferred product is WatchGuard, with our second offering being the Fortigate. We managed other firewall brands, but we only sell WatchGuard and FortiGate products under normal circumstances. There are exceptions based on the client's needs. For example, CradlePoint devices are often the best solutions for a client that only has cellular connectivity as an option. I only point out this situation because FortiGate is now offering LTE/5G solutions. We have many rural clients and moving forward, this may impact what we recommend. Unfortunately, at this time, I don't have enough knowledge to offer any intelligent input on these product offerings, only that they are on our radar.
In my organization, we use Fortinet’s Fortigate. We find it to be very powerful, cost-efficient, and reliable. The user interface is friendly, and it is easy to create policies and set rules. As an NGFW, you can upgrade the firewall cluster firmware without disturbing the user. The graphic interface is very intuitive. The endpoint and email protection are on point, and you don’t have to worry about downtime.
FortiGate offers malware and spyware protection, with advanced capabilities like proxy-based antivirus. It has advanced network protection features and a powerful intrusion prevention system with anti-spam and web filtering capabilities. For all the capabilities it offers, the price is reasonable.
FortiGate has downsides though: the technical support is not great, and there is not a lot of documentation available. It is also kind of hard to configure.
We reviewed WatchGuard before choosing FortiGate. WatchGuard offers a comprehensive advanced network security platform with enterprise-grade security. The router is rich in security features like antivirus, APT blocker, and spam blocker. It is simple to use and applicable for various use cases. It offers web filtering, application control, and monitoring.
We liked that the GUI interface seemed intuitive and easy to use. It integrates with Active Directory, so it is a good fit for MS enterprise users. You can also schedule backups with ease.
WatchGuard is, however, lacking in features for application control and we found the DNS server functionality to be poor. The firewall policies don’t point to a domain, only to IP addresses. While it is excellent that it integrates with Active Directory, the single-sign-on sometimes doesn’t refresh users’ permissions when they log on and off.
Conclusion
Fortinet Fortigate is undoubtedly a powerful and established next-generation firewall, and with all the features and capabilities, it is a better and more cost-effective solution than WatchGuard. WatchGuard would be better for organizations that use MS products.