Fortinet FortiGate-VM Reviews

We primarily set up this solution with our large clients.

The solution offers good documentation.

I'm mostly happy with how the solution performs.

The solution works well for large companies. We use it for our bigger clients.

The interface of the solution could be improved. Right now, it's not the best.

In some areas of the solution, it works slowly.

I am currently using the solution. I've been using it for a while now.

We use a variety of different Fortinet solutions.

We deployed the solution locally, to our server.

The solution is FortiGate 60D and FortiGate-VM is FortiOS 5.2.2. I'm not sure which version of the solution we are currently on.

Our company exports this solution to large customers. We're partners with Fortinet.

We have the solution on a local server.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I am a design engineer and we are designing a security operation center for data censoring in Turkey.

We are using FortiGate to protect more than 3000 end users.

More than one gigabyte per second bandwidth is necessary. FortiGate was quite useful for this scenario, but we are just in the planning and analyzing phase. The tender should be in the near future.

The most valuable features are the web proxy for protection and web gateway for deployment.

Pricing should be more competitive, it's expensive.

In the next release, I would like to see integration capability with SIEM tools, such as QRadar, and LogRhythm.

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

This solution is stable.

From the datasheets that I have read, I can see from its specifications that it is scalable.

In this project, we have more than 3000 end users. Most of the users are security admins and security engineers.

I have not contacted technical support.

The price is similar to Symantec Endpoint, but it's more expensive than Forcepoint solutions. Fortinet is better than Forcepoint.

I don't see that it's a problem concerning the pricing, but it is expensive for Turkey.

We do not pay any additional costs for technical support or additional features.

I would recommend using Fortinet, especially its web security proxy and web security gate because it is quite useful for them.

I would suggest this solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

FortiGate-VM is installed in our data centers and is used for site-to-site connections between offices. 

The most valuable features are site-to-site connections and UTM.

When new versions are deployed they tend to be a little buggy, so they should be more fully tested before release.

I have been using this solution for about a year.

We have had no issues with respect to stability, except that when new versions are released we do notice problems.

Scalability has not been a problem.

We have contacted technical support at times when the appliance was not working well and they were ok. We have no issues with support.

I also use Cisco equipment and the main difference is that Cisco is more expensive.

The initial setup is not very complex and involved only a few settings.

The deployment took us a couple of days.

We had assistance during our implementation and we were satisfied with the service.

The price of this product is great compared to others.

Overall, this is a good product with good features and priced well compared to others. It is GUI-based and I am happy with the interface. I would recommend it and cannot think of any changes that I would make. The only problem is that new releases tend to be a little buggy.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use it our network, not in the cloud.

It is a firewall. We use it to ensure that our network is properly protected from viruses and malware.

The best part of Fortinet is the license is bundled together, so it is easy to use and apply.

The management tools should be more user-friendly.

No issues.

No issues.

I would rate technical support as a seven out of 10.

We previously used Fortinet 620B.

The initial setup was quite straightforward. 

You The initial setup was quite straightforward. 

The price is expensive compared with other vendors, like Cisco and Huawei. However, the performance is good.

We evaluated Cisco, Huawei, and Palo Alto. 

If you have enough budget and care about performance, Fortinet is a good choice.

I use FortiGate-VM for testing.

The user interface, stability, and scalability are the most valuable features. It's also simple to deploy. 

I have been using this solution for one year. 

Stability and scalability are okay. 

I haven't used technical support.

I like FortiGate-VM for constructing VPNs. It's easy to deploy. I would recommend it. It's quite easy.

I would rate FortiGate-VM a seven out of ten. Not a ten because I think that Cisco is better.

The client wants to use the solution for a mix of things, however, I can't recall exactly what they are at this time.

The user interface is the most valuable aspect of the solution.

It's important that, over time, the solution just keeps up with additional features. There's nothing specific that comes to mind, however, it's important for Fortinet to stay as much on the edge as possible, as far as keeping up with what's out there.

The solution is fairly complex.

I've probably been using the solution for three or four years at this point, although I'm not exactly sure.

We don't really need to worry about stability. Most of the time, what we were running into is just trying of get the client familiar enough with the solution, so that way they can deal with it going forward on their own. There's a little bit of training going on at the outset.

That's primarily why we steer clients in the direction of Fortinet. With this solution, clients have the potential to grow in the near future. It's just one of those items that we wanted to make sure they had. It's something that is robust enough to be able to handle growing. It's somewhat robust without breaking the bank, initially. 

Our organization doesn't use the solution ourselves, so we don't have a large number of users on the solution. Out of 160 people, maybe a third use it here. It's different, of course, with clients, who use it more extensively.

We've never had any technical issues on the solution and have never had to reach out to technical support. However, I've heard that they are quite helpful. I just can't personally speak to the quality or responsiveness of their services.

For those trying to troubleshoot on their own, the solution doesn't really need or have tutorials, however, you can find so much information online, it's not necessary. It would be nice it newly released features had a bit more information. It doesn't happen often, so it's not too big of an issue.

We previously worked with a lot of open source products.

The solution's initial set up was pretty complex. There were a lot of on-site VPN connections to set up, so we went through a lot of additional setup for the clients.

The deployment was pretty quicksand was probably completed in just a couple of days.

We didn't need a consultant or integrator. We handled the implementation ourselves.

Since we don't primarily work with the solution, I'm not sure what the licensing costs are.

We aren't really a customer or reseller, however, we do occasionally recommend the solution to clients from time to time.

The entity I was recently researching for was looking basically to replace some existing solutions. That was the reason why they were asking me to help them do some research. I, on a normal basis, don't do that much with it anymore. However, because I have access, I've been helping them.

I'm not using the latest version. I may be using the one before that, although I don't know the exact version number.

I would warn other organizations that there are some places where some people run into some roadblocks, and they're not sure what to do. My experience in the past has always been that, at least, the support is actually really good. Therefore, if they're running into a situation that they're not sure about, it's probably better to call and seek professional help, as opposed to trying to force it, because it can get confusing really quick.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a public cloud for Microsoft Azure. 

My experience with the solution has been very positive and Fortinet provides a great layer of security when it comes to SD-WAN and other security capabilities. There are many models available to suit a host of environments. 

The solution is extremely easy and friendly. The configuration, graphical interface and command line are easy to use.

The price is problematic. 

An interesting feature of the vendor license involves SD-WAN orchestrator and this should be addressed in the part which deals with feature licensing. 

I have been working with FortiGate products for the past five years and with Fortinet FortiGate-VM for the past year. 

The technical support varies with the product in question. The support for FortiGate appliances is relatively good compared with the more complicated support afforded other products. 

I like the comparative use of the SD-WAN feature of the solution. 

The solution could be better priced. 

My sole experience with the solution is in the Azure environments. 

As a Fortinet partner, I make use of many of its products. 

As I feel Fortinet FortiGate-VM to be a good solution, I rate it as a ten out of ten. 

The majority of the government sector prefers using the solution as an external firewall and most of the customers prefer that it be one layer. It's good for use as a preemptive firewall.

I find the simplicity to be most valuable. The solution is very simple to manage and to use effectively. It has a very fast response time. There is no need to make improvements to it whatsoever. 

The graphical user interface should be enhanced. While the antivirus profile can be implemented very easily with the graphic user interface, there are many important features that cannot be undertaken without the CLI command like signature, such as extending a  database. One cannot do a graphical user interface for this and CLI command must be employed instead. 

All hidden features related to CLI should appear as a graphical user interface.

I have been an integrator for Fortinet FortiGate-VM for a couple of years. 

The solution is really stable and the connection with FortiGate is very good, as is the solution. 

The solution is scalable. 

Fortigate has its own systems and provides the services that are related to the priority of the ticket. They provide the tickets for groups, say... one through four and have their own metrics for how they manage these tickets. As such, I consider Palo Alto to be faster and more professional. 

Template or marketplace on Azure can be employed. The credentials one will select while doing the deployment can be used in respect of VM with Fortigate. 

Similar to Palo Alto, we have our own license and we're working on this. The customer must buy his own license. 

Just like with Palo Alto, all products are deployed on the cloud.

We have a large number of customers who are making use of the solution, south of 30. Those in Qatar opt for the solution because of its comparative cost effectiveness. It is not only cheaper but also good.

I rate Fortinet FortiGate-VM as an eight out of ten.