Fortinet FortiClient Reviews

We use the solution internally when we need to access something on the network and we are not at the office.

As far as I can tell, the solution only has one single function, so they could expand its functionality.

My company has been using FortiClient for the last few years. 

The solution is very stable. 

There are currently about 800-900 employees using this solution at my company. 

Previously we just used a normal built-in Windows Defender and McAfee, but we don't use them anymore.

The setup for FortiClient is really straightforward. 

We implemented it in-house and it only took a few minutes. 

The product works fine and I have never had any problems with it. 

I would rate this solution as an eight 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 Fortinet FortiClient as our VPN client. We have about 50 users.

It is very simple to use. I've used some of the others in the past, such as Cisco AnyConnect, which was a nightmare. I've used a couple of others, but FortiClient is very simple to use.

With the lower-end licenses, it tends to kick you out after eight hours. There is a function where it automatically kicks you out after eight hours. They could improve that and not kick you out after eight hours. Other than that, it is already pretty good.

I have been using this solution for two and a half years.

It is reliable.

Their support is very good.

It is easy to set up. You just download the client, and then you put your details in, and it takes you in. 

It is a good solution, and we don't have any plans to switch to another solution. It is simple to use, simple to download, and reliable. It is the best VPN client I've used.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I use the tool to connect server to an ISP Data Center. 

The product's performance and pricing could be better. 

I am using the product for three to four months. 

The product's connections drop all the time. 

The tool is scalable. We have four users in the company for the product. 

The solution's initial setup is straightforward. The product's deployment tool 20-30 minutes to complete. 

The solution is not worth the investment. 

The product's licensing is yearly and expensive. 

I would rate the product a five out of ten. We plan to discard the product and use OpenVPN. I wouldn't recommend this product to other users. 

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 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.

There are two main use cases: the first is to deploy the security fabric environment from FortiGate to the endpoints so that there's only one policy in use. There's no need to deploy the policy in the firewall as well as the endpoint. So, if you deploy the policy in FortiGate, FortiClient can get that policy automatically.

The second is to control the endpoint, that is, to control the antiviral software and antispyware in general.

Telemetry has been valuable. Starting from FortiGate and from the EMS server, you have to begin at the endpoint, and that's the most useful thing about using FortiClient.

I haven't had to open a FortiClient support case yet with Fortinet because we have solved everything ourselves using the documentation provided. Information on deployment and that on how to solve many of the issues are well-documented in the Fortinet library.

The deployment status is not good in Mac devices and sometimes in Windows-based devices using GPO, like Active Directory, that are not on the local network. Deployment can be a painful task in these cases. 

You need to get a management console in the cloud because the EMS server must be deployed on-premises in order to connect to FortiGate. This is because the on-cloud server is not deployed well. It's not good enough yet for the customer to use. So, the deployment cases and the management console of the EMS server must be improved.

Development of a mail protection feature would be nice because there's not one present right now. Something that looks at the email that's getting into the PC or the possibility to use a monitor for the EMS server would be great.

I have been working with this solution for around one year.

Overall, the stability is okay. Ease of deployment, VPN access, and the policies are implemented well. I haven't had any need to restart the servers of the PC due to FortiClient.

The scalability is great, and you can scale it as the company grows.

In Windows 10 devices, the initial setup was okay. It is not really bad if you have access straight to the PC. Deploying unattended is a hard thing to do. Sometimes, it doesn't work using the GPO Active Directory.

Our deployment strategy is to install the solution in the lab using 10 devices, test all the policies, and after that deploy it to the whole company. The lab stage is really easy and is a nice experience. 

When you have a massive deployment, because most of the uses are not in the local area to be covered, deployment has to be done using remote access. That's a painful task. We have had to deploy 190 devices almost manually because they were not on the local network.

My clients evaluated Sophos and Intercept X. They liked the ease of deployment with Intercept X because the control comes from working in the cloud. Sophos also has the management console on the cloud. However, the clients were already using Fortigate, so they wanted to keep that level of protection.

It's a little harder to deploy on Mac devices. When I installed FortiClient, it didn't even work at the beginning. The user experience in Mac to check the antivirus and antispyware protection is not good.

In order to work with FortiClient very well, you need to deploy the VPNs through FortiGate. So those who would like to use Fortinet FortiClient would need to evaluate the bandwidth capacity and how they are going to use a feature that's called split tunneling. That's the main thing they have to consider in order to design their requirements for the person who is going to develop and implement it on the customer's side.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Fortinet FortiClient at eight.