Fortinet FortiGate-VM Reviews

We use Fortinet FortiGate-VM as a firewall, for intrusion detection and prevention to protect our Azure data center, principal operation sites, and our mobile users. 

Together with the FortiAnalizer we have a better grasp of our security position and understand the type of adversary attacks our installations.

The thing that I like the most is that they're very willing to work with us to resolve issues that they haven't taken care of before in their product. 

The end-user protection suite is very good, including the log analysis feature that they now have.

The Fortinet solution has resolved the issues with Microsoft Azure active directory.  This integration allows us to build rules based on Grupo membership for access to data center assets on individual bases.

We have used the Fortigate and Forticlient solutions for three years and they have proven to be very stable solutions.  

Fortinet FortiGate-VM is very stable.

The solution has proven to be scalable to all our requirements. In the years using Fortinet, we have had no cases of scalability due to Fortinet. We have had to increase the firewall resources to deal with a large increase in Forticlient connections.

The technical support is very good.

Positive

We previously used Check Point. Though it is a good solution, the license costs became too high for our organization and obliged us to look for another option.

The initial setup was a little complicated due to our engineers working on knowledge of Checkpoint and trying to replicate the same configurations.  Hindsight finds it may have been less complicated to build the rules from the ground up rather than importing them.

Mostly through a vendor team at first, however, the process was plagued by miscommunications and inadequate scope definitions.

Be very clear with your security consultant who is proposing Fortinet as a solution regarding all the features and integrations you expect to achieve with the solution.

We reviewed Palo Alto, Barracuda, and Sophos.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

We use Fortinet FortiGate-VM as a network firewall.

The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate-VM are the servers, analyzer, and track protection.

I have been using Fortinet FortiGate-VM for approximately seven years.

The solution is highly stable.

The solution is not scalable.

We have approximately 7,000 users using this solution in my organization.

The support has been responsive in my experience.

The initial setup is easy and took approximately six months.

We did the implementation with an integrator called Dimension Data and from Fortinet support.

We have a six-person technical team that does the maintenance of the solution.

The price of the solution could be less expensive. There are some features that have to be purchased separately that have their own license.

I rate Fortinet FortiGate-VM a nine out of ten.

I like how Fortinet products work together to provide a total equipment solution. And, I don't see any issues with that solution. In terms of specific features, I like FortiGate's load balancing, interface, and priority on the network.

Fortinet could improve the availability and delivery of its products. It takes four to six weeks for every purchase to arrive.

I've been using FortiGate-VM for six years.

Fortinet's local support in Mexico could be better.

I rate FortiGate 10 out of 10. 

We're using FortiGate-VM on-prem for our firewalls. The Fortinet component in the cloud is FortiGuard. We get our virus definitions regularly updated from the cloud, but the FortiGate firewalls are all on-prem. While the virtual firewalls are created inside the physical firewall, there is an option for a virtual machine firewall where we'll give you the VHD file, and you can install it to a server.

Virtual machines aren't widely used in Brunei because the Brunei government isn't ready for these things yet. They're more confident in hardware, but everything is slowly starting to head in this direction. Others are watching what will happen when people use the apps before they try them.

Some customers prefer VM, especially those customers already leveraging the virtual machine environment. Typically, they don't want to spend on the hardware because they already have all these VMs, so they choose the VM option. But in most deployments, they still prefer the hardware for their firewall because it's already hard-coded.

To improve FortiGate-VM, Fortinet needs to harden it more. For example, if you are using Hyper-V, then you need guidelines for hardening FortiGate-VM that are specific to the Hyper-V environment. If it's VMware, there should be at least a guideline on how to harden the firewall.

We've been working with FortiGate-VM since 2010.

Fortinet-VM is more scalable than the hardware version. If you're using an appliance, there are limitations in terms of hardware specs. So if you want a more scalable firewall, you can get a VM and install it on a high-end server. From there, you have more leverage on how many virtual firewalls you want to create based on that VM. In other words, it's already fixed hardware in the appliance — it's already hard-coded in the appliance. So if you are using a VM and installing it on a high-specs server, then your machine has much higher performance in packaging all these policies and all these hardware security features. 

We proved the frontline support for our client organizations or customers. So far we are satisfied with Fortinet support. We have currently have Fortinet-certified engineers in our company, so we don't have to contact support unless it's a complex issue. We have an NSE7-certified engineer, so we are quite confident with our deployment now.

FortiGate-VM setup is pretty straightforward. It depends on the implementation size, but it takes a week for an organization of around 100 users. Normally Fortinet helps their customers with deployment and post-deployment adjustments, so you don't have any problems. If anything goes wrong, Fortinet is there to support you. 

Like most similar products in the market, Fortinet's enterprise customers need to pay for annual support. They call it FortiCare, and it's direct support from Fortinet. FortiCare is renewed annually and covers support for new releases, purchases, and updates. 

I rate Fortinet FortiGate-VM eight out of 10. However, based on experience, we usually don't recommend using VM firewalls. We still prefer using a hardware-based firewall when that's appropriate. It depends on your needs and the size of your user base. With FortiGate-VM, you can control the size of your firewall if you're using VMs. But on the other hand, if you are using Microsoft Hyper-V, you need to address all these vulnerabilities of Microsoft. And if you're using VMware, then you need to deal with VMware's vulnerabilities. The hardware version of FortiGate has already been hardened based on FortiGate standards. That's the main difference between the FortiGate appliance and FortiGate-VM.

It's an edge firewall that provides failover and redundancy management with the SD-WAN. We also use it for its traffic shaping capabilities and visibility through a central orchestrator.

It improves an organization because it's a single vendor solution for edge management.

It allows us to handle multiple types of connections at the edge and provide the proper routing and firewall services.

I really like that it's internationally deployable.

There should be more options to use lower-end models in a high availability configuration.

They should continue to improve the traffic shaping; they should add some AI to the traffic shaping. They should also consider learning from other organizations as opposed to just internally. They should follow patterns instead of everyone having to recognize patterns and make adjustments on their own. Instead, they should add some form of intelligence to guide administrators in best practices with traffic shaping. I think this will become very important as we move more toward a SaaS-type world. 

I have been using Fortinet FortiGate-VM for the past three years.

Stability is also high to very high. 

I'd say scalability is somewhere between high to very high.

The initial setup depends on the types of connections that you're bringing into it and the complexity of the business requirements for individual networks. It depends on how you want to route across the company. Overall, I'd say it's less complex than Cisco but it really depends on who's doing it. 

My advice would be to look to the anticipated growth of the network before starting the implementation so that you are appropriately sizing the scope and size of the equipment.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of seven — it's a solid product. Depending on the solution you need, some of the appliances can be a little cost-prohibitive at the high end, but at the low end, they're very cost-effective. Plus, the interface is simple to use. For the right customer, I think it's a solid play.

We primarily use the solution for the firewall capabilities and security.

The solution is easy to use. It's not overly difficult.

The product is quite stable. We didn't have any issues related to stability at all.

The performance overall is very good.

The installation process is straightforward.

The pricing is okay.

We've found the scalability to be good.

There should be a bit more automation.

There could be more integration capabilities.

Technical support could be better.

The solution needs more features surrounding event log management.

We used the solution for three or four years.

The solution is very stable. It's reliable and the performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution is quite scalable. If a company needs to expand the solution, it has the capabilities to do so.

We have about 500 people on the solution currently.

We've since moved away from the solution to a cloud-based product. We don't intent to increase usage for that reason.

We would like the technical support to be slightly improved. We aren't completely satisfied with it at this time.

The initial setup is not complex at all. It's very straightforward. It's simple.

I can't recall exactly how long the deployment process took.

We had two technicians that handled the implementation. It doesn't take a lot of people.

We found the pricing to be okay. It's reasonable and not too expensive.

We were customers and end-users of the product. That is no longer the case.

We've moved off of the product recently. We wanted a cloud-based option and therefore we switched. 

Overall, I would recommend the solution. I would rate it at a ten out of ten.

Most of the use cases that we have are SD-WAN and perimeter firewall related.

Our clients are mostly small to medium-sized businesses. We also have large enterprise clients that range from 1,000 to 8,000 users. We haven't planned to increase the usage, but we are currently using Fortinet FortiGate-VM for perimeter firewalls and SD-WAN for our branch offices.

FortiGate-VM is easier to deploy than physical solutions that require you to have an RNE as then you need to wait a couple of days or months for another physical appliance to be delivered. With VM, if we already have available servers in the network, we can just deploy FortiGate.

With FortiGate, we sometimes encounter bugs in various operating systems. Also, sometimes the security policies are hard to apply specifically when it comes to web filtering.

We've been using FortiGate-VM from the moment I began in my company. So that was two years ago.

This solution is very stable.

The technical support for FortiGate-VM is the same for the physical VM — they're very responsive. 

The initial setup is very user-friendly.

For FortiGate-VM, we mostly have UTP Bundle. MA is for three to five years, but we just discovered that VM is cheaper; we found that it actually costs more than a physical appliance excluding the servers for the platform.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

We primarily provide the solution to our clients. We typically use it in the financial services industry.

The solution is very easy to set up. It doesn't take a lot of time and offers a quick deployment, so you can start using it almost right away.

It's a very secure product. The security provided is excellent and an organization can feel very safe while using it.

The scalability of the solution needs to be improved.

The price model is not transparent by any means and should be made more clear. What's included in the packages is often not very obvious.

I've been using the solution for two years at this point.

The stability of the solution is pretty good. We don't have any blocks and we don't have problems with the solution in terms of bugs or crashes. We have a monitor. We have an aux for many services. It really is problem-free.

The solution has some issues with scalability. I wouldn't say it's easy to scale at all.

Also, with the pricing model being so confusing, companies can't really wrap their arms around what the final pricing would be when they scale up, which makes it difficult for budgeting purposes. 

We don't use technical support from Fortinet. Rather, we get it from a local company. They are okay. They aren't terrible, however, they could be better. Their service is average at best.

The initial setup is straightforward. We didn't find it to be complex at all. 

Deployment is quick and easy. It takes a maximum of two hours to handle everything.

The pricing of the solution is strange. We don't understand exactly how it's calculated or how it works.

We recommend this firewall often and we've actually used many solutions previously. Since we chose this one, we've been overall quite happy with the results. We recommend it largely due to the fact that we use the solution ourselves. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If it wasn't for the pricing model and the scalability issues, I would rate it higher.