Fortinet FortiClient Reviews

The primary use of Fortinet FortiClient is to protect endpoint devices against various types of cyber threats, such as viruses, trojans, spyware, and phishing attacks. It also helps to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive data and networks and can be used to control access to specific applications and websites.

In addition to endpoint protection, FortiClient can also be used to create secure VPN connections to enable remote access to company resources like Jira, code repositories, corporate Wiki, etc. 

It has a horrible performance. It is one of the most unstable VPNs I have ever used. 

Since the project was pushed to use, many employees complained about its instability. 

Sure, it has some advanced features, and it is not fair to evaluate it as a VPN only. Unfortunately, the company policies bring most of the resources through protection, and without the VPN, you will be simply blocked. 

Therefore, we are paying so much attention to it. With a slow or unstable internet connection, Fortinet becomes a nightmare. I personally numerous times printed tasks from Jira to PDF for other employees due to VPN issues.

The solution is easy to configure and manage.

It is designed to bring additional safety to the machine (it is hard to uninstall by an ordinal user, and it has an in-built web filter). However, implementation is far behind industry standards. 

For instance, the Web filter is a component that provides protection against web-based threats by blocking access to malicious or inappropriate websites. It might bring additional safety. However, in the real world, it constantly produces:

1. False Positives, which can result in legitimate websites being blocked. This can be frustrating for end-users and potentially impact their productivity.
2. FortiClient's Web filter may also over-block certain websites, even if they are not malicious or inappropriate. This could result in users being unable to access legitimate websites that are important for their work, causing delays or disruptions.

The solution needs network stability, especially when the internet connection is not stable. 

Forticlient should provide proper polling functionality to try to keep the session alive by all possible means. We have seen certain improvements over the past year. However, it is simply not enough to be treated as a good yet even acceptable tool to use. It is currently producing more issues than adds value.

The web filter quite often blocks random sites, including online dictionaries, governmental sites, etc. Review of the wrong block reports simply doesn't work. 

I've used the solution for around a year.

The solution is not stable enough.

The solution offers a weak performance.

After the merger, our project was forced to use Forticlient.

I know nothing about pricing.

We had no options to choose from.

If your employees might have a weak internet connection (for instance, mobile) think twice before choosing this configuration. If you decide to have FortiClient, never use the WebFilter component. Even Microsoft analog works better (if you really need it).

We primarily use the solution for remote access.

It's very easy to use. It's nice and much easier to use than other solutions we've seen in action.

The initial setup is simple.

It is a scalable product.

The stability is great.

The EDR feature to be included in the basic license.

The stability is good. We have never experienced an outage.

I have seen it working before COVID and during COVID. It has scaled up quite easily. There's no problem with expanding it.

Right now, I'm in a small company and there are 50 users. Previously, a year ago, I was in a bigger organization with 300 users that were using FortiClient.

I haven't had any incident or any interaction with the technical support service.

I've used other solutions in the past. One main difference is it is light, so it consumes minimum resources. The user does not understand the difference in the performance of the endpoint of the laptop or the PC. 

It's easy to implement. I'd rate it at a five out of five in terms of ease of execution.

We handle the implementations in-house. We do not need any integrators or consultants to assist us. 

I would rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We are using Fortinet FortiClient to allow our workers to connect remotely to work. This is mostly because of the lockdown or if they are on vacation.

FortiClient has not given us any ongoing problems. We did have a problem with uninstalling it, but we opened up a service request ticket to resolve it.

The solution can improve by adding new remote console or endpoint features to make the solution easier to use.

In a future release, the web client section could improve by adding more features, such as a firewall.

I have been using Fortinet FortiClient for approximately two months.

The solution is stable, we have not had any issues in the time we have been using it.

The scalability of Fortinet FortiClient has been good.

We have had some problems related to FortiClient and other products, which is related to Fortinet. We have owned other Fortinet solutions which have had a problem connecting with the switch. We have opened a service request ticket on their system, and it has been nearly one month and they are still looking for a solution.

The installation was easy, we did not face any major issues. We had one small issue related to the proxy settings because we did not have a direct connection to the internet. When we applied the license to the FortiClient, we needed to connect through EMS. However, because we do not have a direct connection to the internet, we needed a proxy, but later resolved it. We created a service request ticket and they said that there was no proxy feature, that is why we created a second adapter and it allowed us to have internet. If there were proxy settings on their EMS, it would have been beneficial.

I rate Fortinet FortiClient an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is for remote access from having encrypted tunnels for our users back into our firewall. It was what was available at that point. We no longer are using a Fortinet firewall, which was the reason we stopped using FortiClient. While it was available, it was a good solution.

We had some issues using IPsec as a remote tunnel protocol and we had to change those configurations from IPsec to SSL. That was the only issue we had with FortiClient during the four years we used it. 

Everybody else is doing AI, machine learning, self-healing, next-generation features. They should incorporate more next-generation features. 

The stability is excellent. 

It scaled very well. We had close to a hundred users running the solution without an issue.

Technical support was excellent. 

Before FortiClient we were using Microsoft RAS, Remote Access Server. We moved to FortiClient when we installed the Fortinet firewalls.

The initial setup was very straightforward. It was on demand. We would have our help desk level one technicians do the installation on the end user laptops. The deployment strategy was as needed or on demand. The deployment took half an hour of a level one technician's time.

We didn't have technical staff for this, it was a very simple software to deploy. We had a manual that we would give the users. It was a self-serve. Apart from our installation, it was very simple to use. It had a lot of options which we really didn't use like vulnerability assessment or patching. We just used it for remote access. 

We did the implementation ourselves. 

The return on investment was very reasonable. It was low cost and it functioned, so the return on investment was excellent. The integration was the firewall. Being able to a have firewall log that actually logged my FortiClient information and being able to have a centralized console to give me visibility, was the main reason we used FortiClient, because of its integration with the firewalls.

Licensing was free up to ten users and after that, it was pretty reasonable.

I would advise someone considering this solution to use as much functionality as possible on the endpoint. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. It fills remote access needs. I give it a seven because of the issues we had between IPsec and SSL. I also give it a seven for its cost, which is very low. It was a good product while I had it.

I mainly use FortiClient to connect my laptop to my data centers.

FortiClient's most valuable features are that it's easy to install and connect and has OTP on email IDs and two-factor authentication. 

FortiClient's encryption key could be stronger so that it's not broken too easily.

I've been using FortiClient for about three years.

FortiClient is stable.

The initial setup was easy.

I would rate FortiClient nine out of ten.

I use FortiClient to connect my home office to the company.

FortiClient's most valuable features are that it's fast and safe.

We've had some problems with having to remove the current version and either reinstalling an old version or updating to the new one.

I've been using Fortinet FortiClient for four to five years.

Previously, I used Check Point but switched to FortiClient as it's much cheaper.

The initial setup was easy.

I would give FortiClient a rating of nine out of ten.

We use it for securing all of our endpoints as they move behind our firewall and outside our firewall or in and out of our network. We are using its latest version.

Having a centralized console is a valuable feature. The Fortinet fabric is also very valuable where all different pieces talk together to secure our network and track the North, South, East, and West movement of files and data through our network.

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.

I have been using this solution for about eight months.

It is not as reliable as I would like. Its reliability is around 95%. There are times when things don't work quite right.

We're a relatively small company, and we haven't expanded really large. We're in the 500 or less range, and it works fine for our environment. I don't know how scalable it is. We will continue to use it in the foreseeable future.

They have been responsive. Sometimes, it takes them a little while to understand what the issues are. Fortinet right now has a little bit of growing pain. They have acquired a lot of different technologies over the last 18 months, and it hasn't been an absolutely smooth integration between all of those different products, support infrastructures, and developers.

Its deployment was complex and drawn out. It took a long time.

Its pricing is good. One thing that has always attracted us to the Fortinet range of products is that their pricing is very competitive.

Our particular licensing is on a yearly basis. However, as part of this project, we did pre-purchase three years of maintenance and support at a fairly significant discount.

I would recommend this solution. They are developing more EDP as it comes out, and they are staying on track with their development side and current trends. 

I would recommend others to talk to Fortinet Professional Services before using a local professional. What we found as part of our long implementation was that the local professionals generally have a very good grasp of one area but not in bringing the fabric together, where you have the EMS, Folder Manager, Sandbox, all the firewalls, and other things coming together. There may be some out there who are good at it, but we ran into a number that didn't have a grasp across the whole thing, and we ended up talking directly to Fortinet Professional Services.

I would rate Fortinet FortiClient an eight out of ten.

We use the solution as an antivirus.

It is basically an anti-virus solution, but it is also very useful in that it tends to target all the vulnerabilities on the system, such as windows updates and application updates. Primarily it is used for Adobe related products and other applications.

Initially, the support was very poor. It is getting better, but they should continue to improve this.

Currently, we are having issues where the antivirus is blocking an item, but it is almost impossible to disable the antivirus. If the user wants to lift these priveledges they can't. Some options are not changeable. You cannot switch off a blockage even temporarily. I understand why it is like that, but I would like to give less control to these important processes because right now it is very complicated to turn off the protection even for testing purposes. 

The solution is perfectly stable.

The solution is very scalable. It just depends on the number of licenses an organization has. The enterprise management console is related to the number of clients, and the client interface itself is free to download. The upgrade of the enterprise license is dated, however. Currently, we have 100 licenses.

Previously we used Symantec's End Point protection. Forticlient is easier in that it is less demanding on our organization's hardware resources.

We previously used ESET also. 

The initial set up is now straightforward. Previously, about three years ago, I needed to take instructions from the web on how to download this enterprise solution in order to find out how to implement it. Now it's much better.

Currently, we are considering the license extension and that seems straightforward.

You only need two people for maintenance once it is deployed. 

We have previously used Symantec and ESET. I have not considered evaluating other options, but I update the information on the previous options I have used, and I'm following the latest trends. 

The functionality of the solution is pretty good. I think with every version the solution gets dramatically better.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.