Fortinet FortiGate-VM Reviews

The primary use case of this product is as a firewall. We are partners of Fortinet and I'm a security engineer. 

In our organization, Fortinet is one of the trusted partners. We have offered the solution for a medium-size entrepreneur 

The dashboards are a good feature and the deployment is simple. 

The technical support could be improved. I'd like to see the security platform upgraded.

I have Started learning and deploying FortiGate for 12 months.

The solution is looking stable as per knowledge

This solution is flexible and scalable. 

They need to improve the technical support. 

I have worked with checkpoint. And that solution is also good. 

It is straightforward for deployment

Fortinet is competitively priced, it's cheaper than Palo Alto and Check Point. 

We are the technologies partner so we have recommended the solution by customer dependence upon their use cases

I recommend this solution and would rate it a seven out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for checking a 250-person defense contracting company with multiple locations.

It's improved our operations by not being overly problematic.

The solution seems to be very reliable. 

It's a relatively simple product that is easy to use. It's not overly complex.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

The product does not have a good graphical interface. Their patches and their upgrades are not always compatible with configuration. That means that often you find after you upgrade that there was something else you have to do to the rest of the infrastructure, whether it's a printer or a user or whatever. It doesn't appear to me that their upgrades are well tested. They usually do what they're supposed to do, however, they also usually do some other things that FortiGate doesn't seem to be aware of.

It doesn't maintain legacy capabilities very well.

The stability of the solution isn't ideal.

They don't seem capable of supporting their own product.

The solution needs a better user interface and more intelligent services like spam blocking and auto whitelisting, gray listing, blacklisting, et cetera. It just basically needs better user monitoring.

I've been using the solution for about four years at this point. It's been a while now.

While I wouldn't describe the solution as unstable, there are definitely hiccups. I expect firewalls to be really efficient and very stable and I would say they're only sort of stable. I don't expect to have to figure out how to create a scan-to-email solution every time I upgrade my firewall, for instance.

Of course, they'll blame it on the vendor of the printer and say now how they're not following the standard or something, however, it was working with their product previously and the printer wasn't the item that changed. Their product gets a patch and it no longer works and you're like, "Well, I like your theory, but I don't exactly accept it." I don't think they have the features that a Palo Alto has, let's say.

The solution seems to be scalable. For our purposes, it scales well.

We have about 250 users on the solution currently.

Technical support isn't that great. On a scale from one to ten, they're a five at best. A couple of times where we had a problem, they couldn't solve the problem. We researched the problem on our own, unfortunately, via Google, and we found the solution and the solution was actually written by one of their techs and they didn't even know it.

The initial setup is not too difficult. It's not overly complex. I'd describe it as pretty straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with implementation.

For deployment, we did one site and then the other site and it took probably two weeks to deploy it, with maybe 30 days to get it fully configured. Then, once we had one site deployed, configured, and functional, we implemented a copy of that to the other site. We followed this pattern for each of our locations.

In terms of maintenance, it's hard to quantify what you need for the firewall. The firewalls are relatively low in terms of required maintenance. We have one IT administrator that may be a day a month has duties that are firewall-related. It varies, however, it's not significant work to maintain the firewall.

We did not need the assistance of an integrator or consultant. We were able to handle it ourselves.

We haven't really seen an ROI. It does what it's supposed to do, however, I'm not sure that it makes my job easier. It's kind of a sunk cost. It's one of the frustrations I have. I would expect it to be smarter and capable of doing things that it really doesn't do.

We pay a yearly licensing fee. It's probably a couple of thousand dollars per firewall.

On top of that, if you maintain a hardware warranty, so that you own the devices, you still maintain a warranty on them. There's sort-of a service contract, or you can go at risk. I don't know where we are in that. I'd have to go look, but I know at one point in time we talked about again, if we're going to be doing a tech exchange, maybe we don't want to maintain the warranties on them anymore.

The competitors actually have lower prices for more functionality. On the higher side, if you go with Cisco, it's more expensive, however, it's obviously more functional. A Palo Alto is probably a better solution than a FortiGate.

We're currently looking for alternatives to this solution.

We're looking at alternatives. However, the deficiencies that they have are not significant enough that I would like to immediately leave them, however, they're big enough that I'm looking for alternatives. 

When I come to end the life and I do a tech refresh, if we're not going to go 100% virtual, which is certainly another consideration, I am going to look at an alternate product. I'm not sure we're going to go away from them with a timeline right now, however, I'm certainly looking at it.

We don't yet have a shortlist, however, we'll likely look at the top big names in the market.

We're an end-user and a customer.

We have a plug-in with the subscription. We use the current version on their 100Es.

In general, I would advise other users that they need to look at whether they're going to go physical or virtual. I'd advise once they decide that to then look at the maybe lesser known next-generation firewalls that have functionality. The folks that are going to be operating the tool need to look at the user interface to make sure that that it is easy to use. Most users at an enterprise don't even know the firewall's there, let alone what it is, so they're not unique. I think all of the firewalls are pretty decent at not impacting users. The differentiator is which ones are easy to set up, which ones are easy to configure and use and how good they are at reporting.

The other thing I would say is, look at whether or not they integrate into your overall IT management, whether you're using ServiceNow or what you're using for IT management. How do the firewalls integrate with that or not? It's important.

I'd rate the solution at a four out of ten. It does base functions and it's doing that at a pretty high price.

We can control application filtering and UTM with Fortinet FortiGate-VM. We rely on it for configuring IP address filters, VPN settings, and point-to-site connections. We haven't encountered any issues with its use cases as a firewall.

The tool ensures inbound traffic, specifically on a specific port. We have Fortinet FortiGate-VM as well as F5 for application support.

It gives us an enhanced security solution for any kind of alert that we have configured.

The price and licensing of the solution can be better.

I have been using Fortinet FortiGate-VM for 3 to 4 years. We are using the V7.4 of the solution.

I rate the solution’s stability a six out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

We have used Sophos and Palo Alto before. Palo Alto is expensive. Fortinet’s UI is more user-friendly. You can easily understand the source and destination requests.

We have not faced any difficulty. We recently migrated our data center from on-prem to the cloud and then established the firewall.

The solution is more reliable for firewalls.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Internally, I've been using this solution to front our servers.

I found the Antivirus and Anti-spam features most valuable in this solution. I'm happy with FortiGate-VM because it's good for our servers. It stopped many attacks, including spam, over our networks.

It's been a year since I started using FortiGate-VM.

I find this solution really stable.

The scalability of this solution is an eight or a nine to me. It's good.

I don't have experience with Fortinet's technical support. When I face any problem or issue, I call the company that came here to implement the device.

I hired a consultant to implement the solution. I had a good experience. It was good for my work and my networks.

FortiGate-VM is more expensive than Sophos. We have two appliances: a main appliance, then a backup, e.g. FortiGate-VM, and this make it so expensive, even more than the costs from Sophos.

We pay the standard three-year licensing fees.

I evaluated Sophos.

I spent many years using Cyber and Sophos. Mainly, I use Sophos, while I use FortiGate-VM in the network background.

I see that Fortinet is a big company. I can't compare the Sophos and Fortinet solutions I'm using, because I'm using Sophos at the front, and behind Sophos, I'm using FortiGate-VM, so I can't give a good comparison or opinion. I've only used FortiGate-VM for one year.

It took nearly one month to complete the FortiGate-VM deployment because the decision came from upper management.

No other users use FortiGate-VM in our organization, because it's a device or appliance that only stands in front of our servers.

We don't have a need for maintenance yet. We've only been using it for one year and it currently needs no maintenance.

I don't know if our organization has plans to increase the usage of FortiGate-VM because this decision will come from upper management.

I'm a good observer and I'm still learning some feature metrics of this solution.

What I'd like to advice people looking into implementing FortiGate-VM is to study the FAQs of other users. You should know the tricks and what exactly is needed in this appliance. This is a very good appliance, but I have less experience with it compared to Sophos which I've used for many years.

I'm rating FortiGate-VM an eight out of ten.

Maybe others rate the vendor a 10 out of 10, but I'm sticking with eight.

We are using FortiGate-VM for the protection of our internal network and also for VPN services. Right now, there are about 200 end users in our main office and in other business units we have an additional 100-200 end users. We have about five different firewalls, yet almost all of our units are using FortiGate-VM. So, in total, we have about 500-600 users. 

The best part about FortiGate-VM is its strong security. Besides that, it's nice that there are different models for different sizes of businesses. For example, there are models tailored to enterprise companies and small organizations, and the model that we are using is perfectly suitable for our usage.

One thing that can be better is added automation. And, on top of that, enhanced security when it comes to the automation itself.

I have been using Fortinet FortiGate-VM for five years.

I think it is stable. 

I am impressed by its scalability, given that we are already using it for over 500 users. And, in future, we plan to increase usage even more. 

We have used Palo Alto before, but we switched because at that time Fortinet was more scalable and there were more options available.

I also use Sophos Firewall, though not within the organization, but rather just for small business or personal use.

Currently, we only require the services of three engineers and administrators on our technical team when it comes to deployment and maintenance.

The license we pay is a yearly fee. I can't say it's very expensive; it is a good price and is highly suitable for our usage.

FortiGate-VM is a good solution, and I would say one of the best solutions on the market.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We provide Fortinet services to our clients, sometimes on-prem and sometimes on cloud. 
We are a system integrator which makes us a partner of Fortinet. I am an information technology solutions manager.

I like the web filtering and I like the IPS functionality.

Data reporting could be improved and also in terms of performance, some improvement should be made on VM, it should be more optimized. Scalability of the solution could also be improved. 

For an additional feature, Fortinet should add more SD-WAN with caching as a special functionality. It should be integrated with Fortinet. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

Stability is good enough. It's not that problematic for now.

Scalability is a problem because the solution is VM. As a VM, you cannot have much scalability.

The Fortinet technical support is generally good. There are times when we don't get an immediate response and it requires escalation but that's all. 

The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment time depends on the case but can normally be done anytime from two hours to two days for it to be functional.

FortiGate-VM would be for more like a cloud or on-premise SMB environment. And for anyone wanting to scale-up and get big performance, it should be used as a physical appliance.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution simply for its firewall functionality. It's the main reason we use it.

For myself, the UI is pretty much perfect. It's much easier to work with than Cisco's FirePOWER, for example. I prefer the way it is designed above everything else, even though Cisco may be better for a different reason. Fortigate is just hands down more intuitive and therefore users need less training. While a non-tech person may need a bit of training in terms of configuration, it's still easier than Cisco.

In terms of general features, I find Fortigate and Cisco very comparable. They technically do the same things. Both can drill down by IP or region, so, application-wise, they're very much the same. 

The stability could be improved. I find Cisco to be more stable than Fortigate, which is I major differentiator between the two.

I haven't really explored the cloud too much, as we deal mostly with an on-premises system. However, now with everyone working from home due to COVID-19, it's something I'm beginning to explore and something I think Fortigate needs to invest in and expand on. If they could do something that integrates the cloud effectively, maybe with a cloud provider like Azure, that would be helpful.

Fortigate could speed up its level of customer service in our region.

I've been using the solution for quite a few years now. It's been perhaps five or six years in total.

While the stability maybe isn't quite to the level of Cisco, it is a very cost-effective solution. It's cheap compared to Cisco. Licensing is very, very easy. It's much, much easier than Cisco where licensing is a pain. The Cisco licensing is very difficult to configure, which makes Fortigate a more attractive alternative even with less stability. 

That said, after working with Fortigate for many years, I haven't really encountered a lot of crashes or glitches. The hardware is very, very good. Once a power adapter failed on us and we just replaced it on the device and it was able to recover. With ASA, I can say so far so good. The hardware's really good. They've improved a lot of the hardware specs.

We haven't had any issues with scalability. If a company needs to build it out or expand, they really shouldn't have any issues.

The customer support for Fortigate is fine. Compared to Cisco, however, I would say Cisco's response might be a bit faster. If a device fails, they'll be onsite to replace it themselves. In my region, in terms of Fortigate's response to a similar event, users would have to go through the distributor and not directly to Fortigate. That's why it takes longer. It could be a bit easier, and if they did it a bit more like Cisco, I think it would be better. However, Fortigate's response isn't bad.

The initial setup was straightforward. A company just needs to get requirements from its customers and then they can just deploy. It's not complex at all.

Deployment takes about two weeks. The setup itself is very fast and you will have limited downtime. However, there will be fine-tuning that will be required and this may take weeks. If a customer gives new requirements at any time, you'll need to make some tweaks.

With Cisco, licensing is quite complex, but with Fortigate, you simply need to buy a bundle and they give you everything you'll require.

Right now, I'm also interested in learning more about Cisco, and how it compares to Fortigate. I know Cisco quite well, but I've never directly compared Cisco and Fortigate together before. Of course, I still believe I know Fortigate better.

We're resellers of both Cisco and Fortigate solutions.

I'd advise other companies or users to give a try. The Virtual Appliance is very easy to set up. In terms of scalability, it's easy enough to expand out, especially if you compare it to the hardware. For the virtual solution, it's easily upgraded. For the physical, you need to do a POC.

It really depends on what kind of distributor a company is working with. Some provide you all the resources. Others don't. I'm not sure how it works with the Cisco Virtual Appliance. For Cisco, I only know about the cloud. 

Normally, I provide my customer with Meraki. I won't provide a Cisco solution, even though Meraki is part of Cisco.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. There's still room for improvement. There could be a bit better support and not all solution providers offer this kind of Virtual Appliance in my region. Once more people use it, they may begin to improve on it even more.

We are primarily using the solution on the VPN box as a perimeter firewall. We use it to secure internal networks and a few servers. Our network is solely on Fortigate.

The standard features, including the filtering, are quite good. All the basic features are pretty useful for us. 

It's very simple for us to use. 

It's very similar to SonicWall.

There isn't anything in terms of features that we find are lacking. We don't see any places on the solution that don't cater to our requirements.

I would like to see VNX security and WildFire. Those features I would like to see on the solution in the future in order to be able to evaluate it further.

I've been using the solution for two years.

The solution is pretty stable. 

We haven't attempted to scale the solution just yet. If we want to scale this solution we may have to look at other models. With certain requirements, we probably wouldn't be able to scale it so well as it is right now.

We have about 2,000 people using the solution. Most of the people using it are software developers.

The technical support has been very helpful. We've been satisfied with the level of the support we get.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

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

We had partners that assisted with the implementation.

I'm not aware of the specific costs involved in the licensing of the solution. I don't know that prices are competitive enough compared to other vendors.

We did evaluate other options, including Cisco.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution. I'd rate it eight out of ten.