Fortinet FortiGate Reviews

Our primary use case is mainly for firewalls. We tried FortiClient as well and FortiToken, but we mainly use it for the firewall.

The solution is deployed on-prem. We are using the latest version.

The most valuable feature is the interface, which is very user friendly. We are utilizing most of the features, like content filtering. The firewall is powerful.

The renewal price and the availability could be improved. We faced a lot of delivery issues because of the pandemic situation. We are a customer, but sometimes we have sister companies, so we deliver or order a few extra boxes. In these cases we are facing some delays, like three or four months. There are a massive delays in deliveries and they're saying that it's from the vendor itself. I don't know how long this will last or if it's just temporary.

We have been using this solution for six to seven years.

The solution is stable. The only issue is the renewal price, which is always higher compared to the purchase price.

We have two people for maintenance from network and security.

We have up to 100 users, and we are pretty satisfied. It's stable. We have never had to scale up because of the newest model. We go with C, E, then F, but at the same level, we never had to upgrade the hardware itself to a higher or a bigger model.

We raised a few tickets and issues, and they replied to us. It was pretty good. We have never faced any problems with getting our issues resolved.

It was straightforward. We didn't face any issues.

We implemented through a reseller and it took couple of days. There were some modifications and configurations that took more time, but the core configuration took a couple of days.

The renewal price is always higher compared to the purchase price.

Fortinet is one of our top products, our main products. They have 75% market share, so we cannot ignore the fact that they are in the market, but I need an alternate solution. I don't want to depend on only one vendor, so I think Sophos will be a good option for us.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

We primarily use the solution for its security features and performance. We enable features that assist with web filtering, application consoles, and IPS.

The performance of the solution is very good.

The product offers very good security.

It's pretty easy to install the solution.

The cloud management should improve. There are other manufacturers that have better management cloud solutions. Aruba, for example, is very good at this aspect. Fortinet could look to them as a model of how to do something interesting with management solutions.

Fortinet across the board needs to improve the LAN aspect of their products.

The solution lacks multi-language support.

They could offer access points to small companies and firewalls at those access points. Aruba, in that sense, is much better for smaller organizations as they provide this possibility.

We've been using the solution for a few years at this point.

The solution is quite stable. You don't have to deal with bugs or glitches. You don't have it freezing on you. It's reliable.

The solution is pretty scalable. It's flexible. It works with the organization and allows you to expand it as necessary.

In my company, we use FortiGate across several locations. The location with the most number of users has maybe 400 to 500 employees. That said, there is another FortiGate that manages the traffic that goes to the internet for all of the users across locations. We must have around 900 users.

We do plan to continue to use it going forward.

The solution does have different levels of support. If the problem is critical, you can escalate it quite well and even get telephone support.

That said, in terms of telephone support, they need to have support provided in the Spanish language. Right now, this is not the case.

While we concurrently use both Sophos and Fortinet, we're working towards just using Fortinet. I find that the performance of Fortinet is much better than Sophos.

The solution's initial setup is not complex. It's pretty straightforward. In my case, I have many years of expertise working with FortiGate and therefore it was not difficult. It's quite good and easy to manage.

How long it takes to deploy the solution, depends on what the customers ask you to do. More or less, however, it might take maybe one day to make the initial setup of the unit and the configuration that the customer requests. It may take another day or two to put it on service and check that everything is working properly, once again, based on the requirements of the customer.

I work mostly with firewalls and network equipment including firewalls, switches, and routers. I don't just work with Fortinet. I also work with Sophos, Cisco, and Aruba.

We're using the latest version of the product currently.

Overall, I would rate the solution ten out of ten.

We have both on-premises as well as virtual firewall servers. We have quite a few FortiGate firewalls as part of our infrastructure. We are using Check Point more from the perimeter perspective. It is only there on the perimeter.

The virtual firewall feature is the most valuable. We have around 1,500 firewalls. We did not buy individual hardware, and the virtual firewalls made sense because we don't have to keep on buying the hardware. 

FortiGate is easier to use as compared to Checkpoint devices. It is user friendly and has a good UI. You don't need much expertise to work on this firewall. You don't need to worry much about DCLA, commands, and things like that.

FortiGate is really good. We have been using it for quite some time. Initially, when we started off, we had around 70 plus devices of FortiGate, but then Check Point and Palo Alto took over the place. From the product perspective, there are no issues, but from the account perspective, we have had issues. 

Fortinet's presence in our company is very less. I don't see any Fortinet account managers talking to us, and their presence has diluted in the last two and a half or three years. We have close to 1,500 firewalls. Out of these, 60% of firewalls are from Palo Alto, and a few firewalls are from Check Point. FortiGate firewalls are very less now. It is not because of the product; it is because of the relationship. I don't think they had a good relationship with us, and there was some kind of disconnect for a very long time. The relationship between their accounts team and my leadership team seems to be the reason for phasing out FortiGate.

I have been using FortiGate for the last four to five years.

It is stable.

I currently have about 36 to 40 devices that are being used. We use a certain number of devices from business to business.

We were not getting proper support from Fortinet. That's the reason we had to phase out FortiGate.

We implemented it on our own. It took around one hour. We have one or two engineers for its deployment and maintenance. 

We installed FortiGate four or five years ago. We are just phasing out FortiGate and not doing new installations of FortiGate. Whichever model is getting end of life, we're just replacing it with a Palo Alto device. We can use it in the future, but I don't see any presence of Fortinet in my company at this time. I see a lot of push from Palo Alto, Check Point, and other vendors, but I don't see Fortinet around at all.

With the current COVID situation, I don't know how FortiGate behaves when working from home, which is an entirely different concept. In other firewalls, we create HIP profiles and similar stuff, but I am not sure how FortiGate works in such an environment.

I would definitely recommend this solution, but I think Fortinet has to first create a presence. That is more important. Nobody says anything bad about the product. The product is still widely being used.

I would rate Fortinet FortiGate an eight out of ten.

We utilize the Fortinet FortiGate firewall to safeguard our network and provide secure VPN access from external locations.

We implemented FortiGate because we needed a firewall to protect our data.

FortiGate helped us meet our ISO requirements.

In the time we have been using FortiGate, we have not had any security breaches. 

FortiGate has reduced the risk of cyberattacks that can disrupt our production. Since implementing FortiGate we have not dealt with any such attacks.

I'm unsure whether centralized FortiGate management enhances efficiency, but our experience with it has been exceptional. We haven't encountered any issues, and the operational aspects have been seamless. Additionally, there was no downtime, which is crucial for our operations.

Our Fortinet security fabric has enhanced security across our industrial control system. By safeguarding our production environment and ensuring the security of VPN access granted to individuals, we have achieved comprehensive data protection. We have not experienced any incidents that would have occurred if our firewall was inadequate.

FortiGate does a lot of research, and the product is regularly updated, especially in the ransomware area. I know of a couple of other companies around us that had some ransomware incidents, but we never have. From that perspective, FortiGate has helped mature our approach to cybersecurity a lot.

The email protection and VPN features are the most valuable.

The process of configuring firewall rules appears excessively complex. While FortiGate offers greater functionality than other firewall solutions, its user interface could benefit from simplification.

I would like the log viewing process to be improved to provide a clearer understanding of the logs.

I have been using Fortinet FortiGate for five years.

I would rate the stability of FortiGate ten out of ten. We have never had any issues.

We used the limit of our FotiGate firewall which was around 150 users and we never noticed any performance issues. 

I would rate the scalability of FortiGate eight out of ten.

The technical support is good.

Positive

Our decision to switch from FortiGate to Sophos was solely driven by the seamless integration with our existing Sophos antivirus system. Had this integration not been an advantage, we would have maintained our FortiGate system.

The initial deployment was straightforward due to our understanding of the product and its operation. It was completed in one day by a team of two.

The price of FortiGate is comparable to that of most other firewall solutions and is more affordable than Cisco.

I would rate Fortinet FortiGate eight out of ten.

Except for the firmware updates we have to do now and then, there is no other maintenance required for FortiGate.

We had FortiGate deployed in one location in a big server room. We have 150 users.

I would recommend FortiGate to anyone. FortiGate is an out-of-the-box firewall with good pricing and excellent features.      

We have been using it for our internal infrastructure, but mainly, we are providing it as a service to our customers.

In one of the use cases, a customer is using FortiGate, and they also use FortiAP. To collect the usage and monitor the traffic, they use FortiAnalyzer. So, they have FortiGate, FortiAP, and FortiAnalyzer. It is not a very big deployment. It is a midsized company with less than 50 people.

The UTM feature is quite good. FortiAP is easy to deploy because both Fortigate and FortiAP are under the same brand. Otherwise, you need to do more work on the configuration.

Price, of course, can always be more competitive or better.

If a customer has a requirement for firewall, security, WiFi, and analytics, it is good if we can propose a solution from the same vendor, but we have found that no distributor in Hong Kong has sufficient knowledge to deploy Network Access Control (NAC) solutions. They have a wide range of products, but apart from the popular ones, such as a firewall or an AP,  there is not sufficient support here in Hong Kong for NAC solutions.

I have been using this solution for more than 10 years.

It is reasonably stable.

Our customers are mainly small to medium businesses. I really didn't have a chance to scale it up. We have a customer with two subsidiaries on the same floor. They are changing from traditional features to SD-WAN features. Based on what I heard from my colleagues, migration work is quite smooth, and there are no big issues.

I'm not doing hands-on work for the projects, but from my colleagues, I haven't heard of any delay or incompetency in support.

It is quite easy. The duration depends on the complexity. If you are using a firewall from one brand and WiFi from another brand, then you probably would need more time to do the setup. Overall, the saving is around 25% in terms of labor hours.

Their licensing costs are annual. The UTM feature license along with their support is called FortiCare. We include that as a part of the annual maintenance cost. Palo Alto or Juniper also have an annual subscription charge for UTM.

Price, of course, can always be more competitive, but it is not the most expensive product. The price-performance ratio is quite high for FortiGate.

I would recommend this solution to others as well as to our existing customers who are not using FortiGate. I would rate it an eight out of 10.

My primary use case for this solution is using it as a key net and as a firewall.

For Fortinet Fortigate,I have to have a Fortigate access point. In my opinion, it should have been a universal access, which supported the universal access point. At this point, our campus is large with some 10 thousand students and staff on board at any given time. Every time I have to use Fortigate, the access point portal has to be a universal type. It would be nice if I did not have to "marry" Fortigate for everything.

The only feature is that I don't have to be worried about categorization of the websites. I am able to put on the policies for the blog because this is an institution.There are several restrictions out there to get onto the websites. It creates a "headache free" environment for us.

A couple of things I've seen that need improvement, especially in terms of a hard coding. The driver-level active moment really is out-of-the-box and we have to have contact the customer support and sometimes it is difficult to resolve.

My only solution would be please don't make it as a closed source. Don't make it as
a closed source. Give some kind of a power to the user so that they can consider it
according to their determine that it should have some flexibility on concurrent
connections not be restricted. I agree that to some concurrent connections the CPU and
the box may be a lower model and it need some higher scale level with this. But, there
should be a provision. There should be a provision to go to at least to 60-70% onto the
threshold to go beyond the designed capacity of something. Like we call it as a design
capacity, and since 70% addition to the 100% of it.

If I compare with the open source, it has really frustrated me for a couple of things. Whenever my students or faculty goals increase, then in Fortinet, I need to change the model for going with the higher model, or better model more better first tier it can deal with it.

It should have been scalable. But, it is not quite so. There are limitations, I need to change the box or I have 1500 D. That means I can make 1000 connections, but some kind of vestibules are going on and the advances are going on. Then, I find it very difficult to give  a connectivity simultaneously and upon current connections. As a result, I have to deprive my faculties, my staff, or my students of certain functions.

Tech support is not very efficient in India.

We have considered the Linux Suite and HP BSM.

As I said, that at least one part I am "headache free" that I don't have to categorize all the websites and that security has been pre categorized by the people, and that the services are getting updated. At least one part of my problem is over.

There is no need to buy physical firewall hardware when you host multiple customers requiring individual secure access to their FW. You just create virtual domains (VDOMs).

You can create multiple Virtual Domains (VDOMs), which are treated as separate firewall instances. The reporting you receive out of this appliance is excellent. You will not need an external management system.

1. sFlow and NetFlow

I could not configure sFlow from the FortiGate graphical user interface. I realized that the sFlow configuration is available only from the CLI, and discovered that sFlow is not supported on virtual interfaces, such as VDOM links, IPsec, or GRE.

NetFlow is a network protocol developed by Cisco for collecting IP traffic information and monitoring network traffic. It is not supported on FortiGate for those who have a NetFlow analyzer/collector already setup in their network.

2. Policies

To control traffic in a firewall, you need to create and apply policies to the FW interfaces. By default, policies are sorted by FW interfaces and this makes FW interfaces an integral part of the policies. Zones provide the option to logically group multiple virtual and physical FortiGate firewall interfaces. Then, you apply security policies to those zones (logical groups of interfaces) to control traffic flow on those interfaces.

In a FortiGate unit with a lot of interfaces (including virtual interfaces), there is a high probability of having duplication of policies.

These devices are very stable.

They are easily scalable with multiple built-in interfaces. It supports a minimum of 10 VDOMs. VDOM supports all dynamic routing protocols like RIP, OSPF, BGP, and IS-IS. You do not need to reboot after enabling the VDOMs.

Area for improvement - there is one big configuration file with no separations for the unique VDOMs. Maybe they could separate individual VDOM configuration files with the root VDOM configuration file referencing the individual VDOM config files.

Customer Service:

Customer service is great, an eight out 10.

Technical Support:

I will give technical support an eight out 10.

We previously used different solutions as well. We did not switch, we have different requirements for different customers.

The user interface is relatively easy. The devices are easy to deploy and figure out if you have experience with other security appliances.

It was an in-house installation.

The ROI is great. These boxes are not that expensive compared to what they can do, their functionality, and the reporting you receive.

Fortinet licensing is straightforward and less confusing compared to Cisco. Fortinet has one or two license types, and the VPN numbers are only limited by the hardware chassis make.

I already have experience with Cisco ASA, so it was simply a customer preference and well within the budget.

Great appliances, and it is affordable.

We use it for managing access to our data center, regulating the communication tools employed among servers, and ensuring overall security.

Its performance in fulfilling our requirements has been satisfactory. The graphical user interface is straightforward to navigate.

There is room for improvement related to the logging and reporting aspect. It was somewhat challenging as I delved into the logs during an incident. Navigating through the logs to trace the specific information we needed, as well as generating the corresponding report, proved to be less intuitive. In comparison, when considering Sophos XG, which we also use, the logging and reporting functionality is notably more efficient.

I have been working with it for two years.

It offers good stability capabilities.

We have approximately two hundred users within our company.

I would rate its customer service and support ten out of ten.

Positive

Its performance justifies the cost, there is a prominent ROI.

The pricing is very reasonable.

I would highly recommend it. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten due to the reporting and logging issues.