Fortinet FortiGate-VM Reviews

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.

I work for a telecommunication company. We are a service provider, and we use it for our internal network and for providing services to our customers.

The firewalling feature is used the most, but we also have a particular use case for the SD-WAN service. 

Its interface is good. It comes with a lot of features, and its performance is also very good. 

It is a very good product, and it is good at standing by itself. It can maybe have a little bit of integration with other products, but it is not that important for most use cases.

I am quite new to this product.

Its stability is very good.

For the SD-WAN use case that I am researching, it seems more suitable for medium-sized customers. It is a little bit difficult to use for a big customer.

Their technical support is good.

I would rate Fortinet FortiGate-VM a 10 out of 10. It tops others in terms of performance.

We work in the archiving domain where a secure environment is very important. We have some special requirements regarding the security of infrastructure.

The product has issues with integration. I would like to see better integration in future releases of the product. 

I have using the product for five years. 

I would rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the product's scalability a ten out of ten. My company's four administrators have access to the solution. 

We required a solution that offered maintenance and support. Hence, we chose this product. 

The product's setup is not complex. The tool's deployment gets completed in a couple of hours. 

The solution's deployment was done in-house. 

We have seen ROI with the product's use. 

We use FortiGate-VM to access clients' networks. These are generally Azure cloud environments in which we set up resources for clients to use.

The most valuable FortiGate-VM features are the ease of use and setup. 

Sometimes, FortiGate-VM is a little different to set up than other firewalls that I've managed. It would be better if it was just a little more mainstream. Some more documentation would be nice as well. Documentation has always kind of been our problem with FortiGate-VM. 

There's a lot of stuff I like about FortiGate-VM, but like I said, we still do a lot more Palo Alto firewalls than anything because they have true layer-seven attack prevention. FortiGate-VM does have that too, but it doesn't work as well. I would like to see more layer-seven functionality and expect to realistically block things at the top level.

We have been using this solution for two years. 

FortiGate-VM is stable. They have been okay for everything that I have done with them.

I have worked on some of the largest and smallest solutions that Fortinet sells and they all scale really well.

The initial setup is straightforward and only takes hours to deploy. 

We implemented FortiGate-VM in-house. 

Make sure that you're on the latest stable versions when you update code and stuff like that. That's one of the things that we've had some issues with in the past. 

Fortinet FortiGate-VM is easy to use.

The performance could be better. Some features need to have quality control when the switch is working. The dedicated bandwidth for some users is not reliable.

I have been using Fortinet FortiGate-VM for approximately one year.

I have found Fortinet FortiGate-VM to be stable.

We have approximately 150 people using the solution.

The technical support could improve. They took approximately one month to solve a firewire issue to update. I would not recommend it.

I have used Sophos previously and I could it to be better. However, we have found the performance to be the same as Fortinet FortiGate-VM.

The company that provided the solution that was installing it took approximately three days.

I can do the implementation by myself. I do the maintenance and support of the solution.

There is an annual license required to use the solution.

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

The version I am using, 6.2.8., is not the latest. It's a somewhat older version and has not yet been upgraded. 

We have configured our use cases to be those of a banking environment. We have enabled the use of the firewall solution for our 300 branches. 

The solution has pretty awesome features. It supports at least 300 of our branches. We have yet to come across any issues concerning the 300 branches we have configured, a high number which equates many connections. This means that the solution can handle that much traffic. This is a feature of the firewall that we appreciate, as well as that of antivirus. In spite of the solution being inexpensive, it has everything one would need. 

There are certain GUI features that should be present but are not, although these we can address through the command-line interface. We have to make use of this to create certain policies or change the interface layer. These configuration restrictions should be addressed. 

Moreover, the reporting should be upgraded, as there are only a small number of reports available. We also encounter issues on the logging pages. GUI does not allow for live logging and the command-line interface must be used in its stead. The need to rely on CLI should be done away with entirely. 

While we consider the solution to be user-friendly, certain improvements should be made in this respect. 

I have been using Fortinet Fortigate-VM for the past two years. 

The solution is extremely reliable. As mentioned, it is being used in 300 branches and no issues have arisen.

The solution is scalable, although I have not attempted to undertake further plugins or additions. 

We have had no issues with the technical support. We have found them to be good, very knowledgeable and helpful. 

Other solutions I have used in the past include Check Point and Palo Alto.

The initial setup is straightforward, although the configurations can occasionally become involved. 

At present, the SD-WAN licenses are on an annual basis. 

We have no specific complaints about the licensing prices. 

I am on the implementation team, meaning that we configure the firewalls for our customers, mostly consisting of the BFSI banks and accounting for 2,000 people who make use of the solution. 

I cannot proffer advice to others who are considering implementation of the solution. All I can say is that it is straightforward and simple, only requiring configuration. 

I rate Fortinet Fortigate-VM as a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for IPS, internal segmentation, inspections, and VPN.

The most valuable features we have found to be the VPN, ease of use, and overall simplicity.

Web filtering is a feature that needs some improvement. There should be some additional features to allow active users to change their own passwords.

Additionally, the secure web gateway and the inspection feature need more security improvement in the next release.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

The solution has been reliable in my experience.

We have approximately 250 users using the solution in my organization and we plan to increase usage.

The technical support has been good.

The solution is easy to install.

We are on an annual license for this solution and it could be cheaper.

Previously we evaluated other solutions, such as Check Point and the Palo Alto firewalls. This solution is easier to understand than the others.

I would recommend this solution to others. Especially if they are new to these types of solutions, it is easy to understand.

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