Fortinet FortiGate Reviews

We use SD-WAN to connect the checking role between our branch offices, like Yap installation or fire shooting. We use Fortinet FortiGate to control the different segmentation.

The IT manager could monitor every security device and increase SD-WAN. Still, the SD-WAN function had to be integrated into our older device. So now our IT manager can see all the end user information about the network information and security event in the single panel base. SD-WAN has helped the organization to remediate threats.

We provided great information to our end users, and our guys could quickly interact with the tool for information.

Security, SD-WAN, and Streetscape are valuable features. It is a straightforward solution for our partners. The solution is more efficient for user applications.

In the next release, the tool can have more features in a single box that can be multi-applied to integrate everything.

I have been using the solution for twenty-thirty years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

The customer service and support team is good. 

Positive

We used CheckPoint previously. We switched because it was high-priced.

The initial setup was easy.

It was deployed through a vendor team of one-two person.

We think the price is lower, and suitable for most end users.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for security and to protect our internal network from the internet.

This solution is deployed on-premise.

My company has 300 people at HQ. We have about 60 users in practice and 10-15 users per branch.

I am satisfied with the solution for now.

The solution could be more secure and stable.

I have been using Fortinet for over four years.

Stability could be improved.

It's scalable. It's an SD-WAN application, so on every site we have a FortiGate firewall there.

I think there is a third-party vendor that is helping with technical support.

I have not been exposed to working with any other firewall except the FortiGate. At one point, our network was strictly on Cisco routers and switches. At that time, I was not exposed to having access to the security aspect of that, so I couldn't say which devices would be used for protection.

Initial setup is straightforward. There weren't too many issues with setting it up. It takes one hour or so.

We used a consultant.

You need to pay a license for this solution. Our licensing is now done in our subsidiary.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10.

Compared to Cisco, I think the Cisco routers are actually more stable.

We use the solution on the perimeter. We are a government entity. We have other organizations monitoring our network. We also have our own firewall to separate the DMZ and different things on our external servers.

The solution provides good threat intelligence feeds.

The advanced models are expensive.

I have been using the solution for five to six years.

The tool’s stability is good. I rate the stability a seven or eight out of ten. The stability could be improved.

The tool is very scalable. It connects to its own wireless access points. The firewall is supported by other technologies. We can add more products and extend the features and the network.

Fortinet has a tool that migrates all the policies from the previous firewall to the new one.

The vendor helped us with the setup. It was quick. We connected the new firewall first. Then, we exported the policies from the live firewall to the new one. On a weekend, we deployed the new firewall.

If we buy licenses for a longer duration, we get discounts.

Fortinet has better models, but we are using the one within our budget. It's a good product. Besides Fortinet, we're using Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Defender, as well as the safety features that come with these products. There are many products in the market. The monitoring team is using Palo Alto. Palo Alto is better than Fortinet, but it's more expensive.

We use Fortinet for VPN, too. We have not faced any major issues with the tool. It has a lot of capabilities that enable us to customize tunnels and allow traffic from certain countries or regions. The vendor provides cloud-based models, but we do not use them because they are subscription-based models that are not within our budget.

The vendor has a lot of free and paid training courses. It is the best way to learn about the product. It is similar to Palo Alto. All the good companies have a lot of training materials and training courses to understand the product. The initial versions are free of cost. The certifications will help people understand the process and make administration easier. The cloud version has AI features.

Overall, I rate the product a seven or eight out of ten.

We have deployed this firewall for many companies. Our clients are financial and medical companies.

It enabled our clients to reach locations and access their applications easily with no latency. It provided ease of access.

Its threat prevention capabilities are most valuable. 

It's a user-friendly firewall. Most of the tasks are very simple. It's simple to configure and troubleshoot this firewall. 

The improvement is related to logs. Instead of the CLI, we should be able to have more insights into the logs of the firewall in the GUI.

I faced a lot of issues when I was trying to deploy the firewall through FortiManager. The firewall is stable, but FortiManager is too buggy, and it doesn't work properly. It gives too many errors.

There are some issues with Fortinet SD-WAN. It's quite complex.

I've been using this solution for more than four years.

It's a very stable product.

It's scalable. We have plans to increase its usage.

Most of the time, they are helpful, but there are times when they don't resolve an issue right away. They take the log, and then they take their time to give input on the issue. Most of the time, they take one or two days to get back after analyzing the logs. Instead of that, they can just schedule a session to resolve the issue right away because sometimes the issue impacts the production environment, so we need to resolve that issue as soon as possible. Overall, I'd rate them a six out of ten.

Neutral

I have worked with other firewalls. Fortinet FortiGate is better than Palo Alto and Check Point firewalls. It's more user-friendly.

I have deployed it for a bank at a core level. On the perimeter, there was a Palo Alto firewall, and at the core level, we deployed the FortiGate firewall at DC and DR locations. After that, we deployed SD-WAN. We replaced the MPLS switch with the Fortinet SD-WAN device, so the whole branch traffic comes to the SD-WAN box, and from there, it comes to the FortiGate firewall, and then it goes to the Palo Alto firewall for the internet access and resource access. While migrating branches from MPLS to SD-WAN, we did require a maintenance window.

There was no difficulty. It was very user-friendly. I have had many difficulties with the Check Point firewall. I have deployed major projects on the FortiGate firewall. I migrated more than a thousand branches on Fortinet SD-WAN and implemented FortiGate super massive firewalls at DC and DR locations. There were no complexities. Only at one location, I had an issue related to SD-WAN, but my query was resolved by Fortinet's local team.

It's an on-premises firewall for the DC and DR locations. I have never worked on cloud projects, but if there is any opportunity to deploy it on the cloud, I will do it. I have only done on-premises deployment.

I am an implementation engineer. I deployed and configured the whole firewall. I also troubleshot any issues. When I had any queries, they were clarified by Fortinet's engineers.

Its pricing is good. It's average or normal as compared to Palo Alto and Check Point firewalls. 

I didn't evaluate other options.

I'd recommend this firewall to others. Most of the time, when I do PoCs, I recommend Fortinet FortiGate. It's quite easy to manage and deploy.

I'd rate Fortinet FortiGate an eight out of ten.

We are partners with Fortinet, so we are system integrators. We are the bridge between Fortinet and the customer.

I'm satisfied with the product more or less. If we are presenting Fortinet and proposing Palo Alto also, Fortinet is not able to develop the kinds of features available right now in the market. Even with the sandboxing feature, which is an advanced synchronized security, right now most customers are asking for a complete solution like EDR, XTR, or a kind of firewall. It should get synced, and there should be a type of URL filtering application that filters all kinds of visibility.

The feature which gives us a lot of pain is ASIC architecture. The firewall architecture is a kind of an operating system in the chip. We have our kind of base operating system in raw mode, so nobody is able to hack it out. The problem is that every time your base operating system gets an upgrade, customers need to upgrade the firewall. It means you have to replace the older firewall. That's a pain area. It should not be that kind of ASIC base. It should be based like Check Point and Palo Alto so if there is a major update coming in, they can be updated on the same firewalls.

We have been working with Fortinet for about five years.

The product is stable. Normally we are selling Fortinet for customers who have 100 or 150 users, not more than that. Over time, there is a lot of worry about insecurity. For big accounts, we are not able to satisfy the customer with the Fortinet firewall because they ask for a lot of features. Even in PLC, we have some challenges in that.

Technical support is okay.

Initial setup is easy to configure.

The price is fine. We were expecting that Fortinet would give competition to Palo Alto, but the market that we are covering with Fortinet is kind of SMB. They are compatible with Sophos, so we are not dealing with the big boxes because then there will be a requirement of big boxes. If there are more than 2,000, 5,000, or 15,000 users, we are selling for Palo Alto, but not lower than that.

I would rate this solution 6 out of 10. 

The people who are working right now as system engineers are doing a kind of formal activity with the configuration. That means they are doing the basic activation. They are not doing a lot of experiments on them, so they should go with that because Fortinet is also having sensors, which can be highlighted to the customers. 

Training should be available to the partner. The people who really implement the Fortinet firewall or Check Point or Palo Alto don't have enough knowledge about that because there is no public document or public training available.

We use FortiGate to protect our company network. We have a wireless plan (WLAN) environment.

The user interface is very good.

FortiGate is very simple to manage and easy to use.

This is a secure solution.

FortiGate should have a better way of detecting and managing the system memory because otherwise if the memory is too low, a system restart is required.

I have been using FortiGate and other products in the Fortinet suite for approximately two years.

It is used on a daily basis and in general, stability is okay.

There were two instances where the memory was full and the WLAN was blocked. The system had to be restarted. This may not have been a problem directly related to FortiGate. It may be that I didn't have enough to support the product. Perhaps a larger model would solve this issue.

We have approximately 80 employees that are protected by FortiGate. We have approximately 20 that work in the office, with a total of about 50 PCs.

It has not been necessary to scale beyond that.

I have never been in touch with technical support.

Prior to FortiGate, we were using Cisco for our firewall and our switches were from HP. Every five or six years, we upgrade our devices. The last time, we decided to buy Fortinet products because of a suggestion from our vendor.

Our vendor suggested Fortinet because the security is good, it's simple to use, and the price is good.

I have an external technician that manages FortiGate for the company. This person was responsible for the initial setup.

I do simpler network changes myself, such as altering ports on the firewall or the switch.

I am very satisfied with this investment. It's a good device and works very well to protect us.

This is not a cheap solution but it isn't expensive, either. It's a good solution for the right price.

FortiGate is regularly updated and my last update was within the past couple of months.

In our company, we have not needed to use any special features, so it is difficult to consider what new features I might want to see in the future.

Overall, this is a very good solution and I personally haven't had any problems with it. I would recommend that my colleagues buy Fortinet devices because they are good.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are resellers. We provide products and services to our customers.

It's not just one product. We have been using and installing different kinds of solutions for more than ten years.

I do remember that, of course, the interface was good. It's intuitive, and when we installed it together with access points, we could manage them from one place or from the cloud or from FortiGate itself. 

It's quite comfortable to handle the FortiGate firewall. The fact that we received reports by email, also good. All in all, it's quite a good product, of course, a very good product.

If it would integrate everything in one place then it would be an improvement.

I wanted to buy some switches and integrate them into the system, but we couldn't find anyone here in Israel to provide them or to provide support. Also, we could not get a replacement if something needed to be replaced. 

We wanted to use one vendor to do everything from one managed central management point. It may be something they offer now, but I am not sure.  

It would be helpful if we can have one easy place to manage, or from the cloud to all the devices that are at the client's location. This is the backbone, the switches, the access points, FortiGate, everything. 

Sometimes you do need to know some CLI commands, so it's a bit harder for technicians or new people that don't know it. 

So, if you could do everything without that, it would be much easier when you do V-LANs.

We have been using this solution for a few years.

We are working with several versions because we install them for our customers.

It's a stable product.

It fits for small and medium-sized companies. Regarding the very big ones, I don't know, I'm not in the enterprise market. But for our clients that are offices or companies that are sized between 20 users and 300 users, it's okay. It's good for them.

When I contacted technical support a few times, they were good.

Previously, we worked with Check Point.

They are both good products that are easy to use and have good support.

They're both good. I use them both, it depends on the customer, and what their requirements are. It also depends on which would give you the best value for the money at the time. I don't know how to say which one is better as a firewall. 

The initial setup is easy.

It's an expensive solution. The price should be lower.

In the beginning, I would be the one who would install them, but later it will be our technicians.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are currently using manual router failover that can be configured on the Fortinet security appliance’s second network interface to provide network edge redundancy if the primary managed router fails. If the edge router fails, traffic can be moved to the security appliance with a simple cable swap.

We are looking for a fully redundant solution with automatic failover between both Fortinet Security appliances. I am currently looking at battle card information between Fortinet and Zscaler. I have to do a competitive analysis.

The low cost of ownership was a benefit with all of the features we wanted.    

Preconfigured images have been developed for quick deployment. However, if we need a custom policy or have to include an existing policy then that can be accommodated as well. 

Virtual Domains (VDOMs) are a feature that we found valuable.

We found the Firewall, VPN, Application Control, IPS, Fortiguard Web filtering, anti-botnet, FortiGuard, Anti Spam Wireless LAN controller, WAN optimization, vulnerability assessment, and endpoint control all to be valuable.

Fortinet certifications include NSS Labs for NGFW, firewall, IPS, SSL, antivirus, and antispam.

Fortinet provides a consolidated security platform for the market place and certifications with NSS labs prove their security assurance.

To the best of my knowledge, Fortinet does not have a CASB solution and Fortinet does not have a Zero trust solution. Fortinet claims to do everything Zscaler is capable of and I'm looking for a comparison between the supported features.

Fortinet VPN and DDoS capabilities are great, yet we need to provide a solution that enables CASB and integration to the cloud.

We have been using FortiGate for three years.

Fortinet is very easy to service and set up.

Fortinet is the least expensive solution.

We are comparing the features of Zscaler vs. Fortinet. We are trying to determine what features Zscaler has over Fortinet and vice versa.

Fortinet was initially scoped as 25 rules for small, 50 for medium, and 100 for large. We need to incorporate more rules but there would be additional professional services or staging services. We are looking to incorporate the cloud access with the Fortinet UTM solution.