Fortinet FortiGate-VM Reviews

Whenever I need to deploy a Fortigate firewall, I go on Fortinet and do a trial license and work on it.  

The use case depends on the requirements. The requirements change from client to client. 

The virtual firewall feature is very good.

The solution is easy to deploy and manage, which makes it easy to test.

The products never disappoint us.

There are a lot of features that overlap and are similar to other products.

The setup is simple.  

I haven't had much of a chance to work on the VM environment too much. I don't have any notes for improvement. 

Technical support could be better. 

I've used the solution for two or three years on and off. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches when handling testing in the lab environment. 

The solution is scalable. You can expand it easily. 

I'm not sure if there is a local person in Pakistan. Whenever I try to contact support, there is always a delay and I have not been so happy with the support services on offer. 

I also use Sophos. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. With the deployment of any type of firewall, you do have to do some workarounds. As long as you know the specifications, you are good to go. I'd state the ease of setup eight out of ten. 

The deployment, so long as it is not a migration, only takes a few hours. 

They do offer a one-month free trial. 

They offer affordable pricing. It was not expensive. I'd rate it seven or eight out of ten in terms of affordability. 

We are Fortinet partners. 

The solution is pretty good. 

I would recommend the solution to others. I've had a great experience with the virtual environment. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

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. 

The primary use case for Fortinet FortiGate-VM involves formulating policies and services within the environment.

They could provide more integration options with different platforms.

We have been using Fortinet FortiGate-VM for six months.

I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten.

We have 200 Fortinet FortiGate-VM users in our organization. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

The initial setup process is simple. It involves defining the parameters for deployment, such as the number of sites, PCs, and Wi-Fi users.

We don't have to pay for the licenses. But we might purchase licenses in the future.

FortiGate improved security within our virtualized environment by providing robust first-line defense capabilities and optimized cost-effectiveness.

It provides an ease of management and configuration as well. I rate it a nine out of ten.

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.

We primarily use this solution for the firewall and IPS.

The most valuable feature is the UTM, which gives them an advantage over other firewalls.

The reporting is not as good as it is with other firewalls and it should be improved. There should be a customized report, for example.

The dashboard seems to change quickly from version to version, and they should follow the lead of vendors like Palo Alto, Juniper, and Cisco, and always keep it the same.

The bandwidth limitations should be increased.

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

FortiGate-VM is stable and I have not faced any problems with it.

It is working fine and I have had no trouble with scalability.

We have very rarely had to contact Fortinet about anything. When we have a problem then we have local support with our vendor. They will send their technical people if we need help on-site. We are very satisfied with our local experts.

I have worked with McAfee for a long time. The only thing that is better with McAfee is reporting, which is very good. They offer customized reports. We have decided to keep McAfee as our endpoint solution and use FortiGate-VM as our firewall.

The initial setup is very easy. Somebody who has a little bit of experience in VMware or with firewalls will be able to do it in no time.

There is a benefit in terms of the cost of using this solution because the price is very good. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

I tried SonicWall, Cisco ASA & Sophos but Fortinet is best among them in term of service and price.

I will say that for low-end firewalls, Fortinet is good compared to the others. The pricing is good, and when you need a new feature, you don't have to buy a new device.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a virtual machine for firewalling.

The solution is very user-friendly. 

We have a next-generation firewall and can lock things in on a parameter level very effectively.

It is easy to set up the solution. 

The solution is stable.

I've found the technical support to be helpful and responsive. 

I can't recall any aspects that need improvement.

The pricing could be a bit better.

We'd like to have more customization and easier customization of policies. 

The scaling can be a bit better. 

I've been using the solution for the last two years. 

The solution is okay in terms of stability. We have not had issues. It's not too difficult to work with it. 

I'm the only person working directly with the product.

The scalability is limited. If we have to scale, we need to upgrade licenses after the license is up for renewal. Otherwise, we need to buy replacement licenses on top of the licenses we've already purchased instead of just expanding and adding onto what we have.

I've worked with technical support in the past. They are very good. When we open tickets, they respond quickly. I'm happy with the level of support overall. 

I have worked with other firewalls. Which is best depends on the requirements. It is also dependent on the budget. We need to consider performance and scalability and take onto consideration how much support will be available as well. 

The solution is easy to set up. There is a lot of documentation provided. For 70% to 80% we can do just fine, and for the rest, we just request documentation and can finish the job. 

We do not need much maintenance. We handle that ourselves, and it's not too difficult. 

The solution is set up and configured in-house. 

The pricing is okay. However, it could always be better. When you need to scale, you need to buy bigger, different licenses. 

We are using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to others, depending on the business requirements. It's a pretty good solution in general. 

I'd rate the product eight out of ten.