Fortinet FortiGate-VM Reviews

I work with a lot of small business companies in Austria. Small businesses in Austria are from one to 100 employees. The FortiGate 60E is a top product for these Austrian companies for all cases of Internet usage.

There is an interesting possibility of building a tunnel to a firewall from access points. We use this feature for small branch offices with one to two employees with access to central RDP servers.

One top feature is the ability to use the appliance as a WLAN controller for up to 10 access points with the new 5.6 firmware.

Another top feature is the really good web interface and the classic Fortinet features, such as IPS, IDS, AV scanner, and spam filter.

At this time, I can't say anything against the device. It has been doing a great job.

In the first two releases of FortiOS 5.6, we had some trouble with the SSL VPN service. Sometimes it stopped working, and the IPS daemon too. Since 5.6.2, it has been running without any issues.

There are no problems with the scalability.

There are only two times that I had to contact Fortinet support since I have used Fortinet devices (15 years). Here in Austria, the distributor is doing a great job. It is very good to have the ability to contact an NSE 8.

For somebody who does not have experience with Fortinet appliances, the initial setup is very easy, but basic networking knowledge is necessary. The Setup Assistant will guide you through the first steps, and you can config basic settings for basic security.

The basic pricing in Austria is OK, but asking for special offers, e.g., NPOs, NGOs, trade up, and/or trade in, is always useful.

No, I did not evaluate other products.

Look for the latest OS version, read the release notes and the technical documents for comparison.

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 Fortinet FortiGate-VM as a firewall for our internet.

Fortinet FortiGate-VM is very easy to create the user of VPN, allowing them to use it quickly. Additionally, the integration and interface are good.

I have been Fortinet FortiGate-VM for approximately three years.

The stability is good.

Fortinet FortiGate-VM is scalable.

We have 110 systems for users that we can connect and we have 12 users using the VPN.

The technical support in my experience has been good.

We require ten people for the deployment of Fortinet FortiGate-VM.

We have been waiting a long time for the vendor to give us licenses, it has been five months and we are still waiting. However, the price is reasonable.

I rate Fortinet FortiGate-VM a ten 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. 

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. 

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 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 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.