Fortinet FortiNAC Reviews

We use the tool to ensure that we have network access. It also helps us avoid stranger devices getting into the LAN or Wi-Fi. 

The tool provides us with a list of devices that tries to connect to our network. It offers us a lot of network visibility.

The solution's licensing price should be improved. 

I have been using the product for three years. 

I would rate Fortinet FortiNAC's stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the product's scalability a ten out of ten. 

Fortinet FortiNAC's setup is straightforward. 

We have seen ROI with the tool's use and it is high. 

I would rate the product an eight out of ten. 

We use the solution as a firewall to protect the network.

The solution's technical support needs improvement.

We have been using the solution for two or three years.

It is a scalable solution. Our organization has more than 200 users and plans to increase its usage.

The solution's technical support could be better.

I have used Sophos, CyberArk, and Palo Alto solutions earlier.

We require two executives for the deployment and maintenance of the solution.

The solution generates a return on investment for us. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. It is a good product.

We use this solution to control the network.

With FortiNAC, we don't need to configure the mass client site or access points. For example, we don't need to configure the switching site for a client's site. With Persistent Agent, it makes it much easier.

I would like to be able to compare the configuration backup before and after.

After version nine, the solution has been stable. There were some issues with stability in the previous versions.

It is a scalable solution. Some of my customers have nearly 100 endpoints. I use sync topology with my customer who has over 2000 clients or endpoints.

The technical support is fast, and I would rate them at nine out of ten for speed.

I would rate the documentation in relation to problem solving at seven out of ten.

Fortinet FortiNAC is easier to deploy than Cisco ISE or Aruba ClearPass. However, you have to know authentication systems and requirements when implementing on NAC devices.

FortiNAC's price has gone up in the last year. However, compared to other solutions, such as Cisco ISE, it is cheaper.

If you're considering implementing FortiNAC, I recommend determining which type of implementation is suitable for your needs.

FortiNAC can handle most configurations easily, but Cisco ISE works with only Cisco devices. Thus, FortiNAC is suitable for multivendor topologies, whereas Cisco ISE is not. Overall, I would rate FortiNAC at eight out of ten.

I use FortiNAC to limit access to our network; it's our firewall. We are customers of Fortinet and I'm a technical manager. 

The solution provides good performance, is easy to use and easy to configure.

The technical support could improve; the response time is quite slow. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, we have 100 users. 

Customer support could be improved as their response times can be quite slow. 

Neutral

We pay an annual licensing fee; this is quite an expensive solution. 

I rate this solution seven out of 10. 

The primary use case is for the visibility of the entire network architecture. It provides visibility to the switches, and routers to see the domain users, contractors, and guest users. It provides network access control, to be able to tell what endpoints are running on the machine, and what windows updates are on the machine. It is also used for cyber threat control.

The most valuable feature of the solution is having visibility over the IoT devices on the network. It allows the organization to see all the machines on the network, who is accessing what at which time, and what they are doing.

When you compare the solution to other NAC solutions like ISE and Portnox, you realize that it is not able to work as a single sign-on device. You need to use it with FortiAuthenticator. If you want to use certificate management, and two-factor authentication, you have to buy a FortiAnalyzer, which is different from ISE. I would like to see these features included with the solution.

The reporting can also use improvement. 

I have been using the solution for three years.

The latest version of the solution is stable.

The scalability is good. You can control as many users as you want.

The support is useful. They are usually able to log on and resolve the issues.

Neutral

The initial setup is straightforward on VMware, but it gets complex if you try to set up for example on Hypervisor. You need to have advanced knowledge to have a successful setup.

We implement the solution for other clients.

I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

If the deployment is strictly on a wired network it takes about a week however, if it is primarily on a wireless network it can take about three weeks.

Maintaining the solution is easy. The only area that may require additional support is if there is a large number of new guest users on the network. That requires admin approval for each user individually and takes time.

I would say it is a good solution, especially if you have IOT onboarding with a sponsor. You will be able to manage your users in a seamless way.

I'm a senior network architect and our company is a reseller of FortiNAC. This is a new product for me and we'll be starting implementation shortly. We've been testing the product and I'm just finishing the course. I'll be implementing for our client which is a medium-size company.

The interface is good and simple to use. Some of the ideas presented on the online course could be clearer, like policy creation. But the interface and other features are very good. 

I think that the course content could be improved, it's not that simple to work through. I'm an expert on Cisco ISE. And also I have CCIE on Cisco. I made a comparison between Cisco ISE and FortiNAC. Cisco ISE has full integration but FortiNAC doesn't.

I've been using FortiNAC for just one month.

I'll have a better idea next week about the stability, once it's been tested in the production environment.

The communication with customer support is fine from an administration perspective. But it's lacking documentation on the concept of how the technology works. There are no documents in the FortiNAC library relating to network function. 

I would rate this product an eight out of 10. 

We use the tool to connect different networks, like connecting one side to another. Additionally, we deploy some policies to allow certain users within the network environment.

The most valuable aspect of this product is its security features. Many customers prefer cheaper devices, but those often lack adequate security measures. It also supports compliance with industry regulations. 

Fortinet FortiNAC's price is expensive compared to other products. 

I have been using the solution for three to four years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten.

Fortinet FortiNAC's scalability is good. 

I haven't used the tool's support yet.

The tool's main difference from other products is security, ease of access, and integration with other devices.

The initial setup is not complex—it's quite straightforward. However, the complexity of the environment can vary depending on the customer's requirements.

It could be difficult, depending on the environment. Sometimes, we need integration with other devices, which adds complexity. It's particularly challenging when integrating with older vendors, as their installation processes are often more complex.

I rate it a nine out of ten.

I rate Fortinet FortiNAC's pricing an eight out of ten. 

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

It is mainly used when we integrate the solution with Fortinet firewalling, sandboxing, and the security fabric of Fortinet. In an all-out implementation where we implement different solutions, FortiNAC is one of the components in the entire ecosystem.

Its deployment is virtualized but on-prem.

The network segmentation is the most important part of the solution. The integration with the Zero Trust Access solution is a crucial part of segmenting your network.

There could be better integration with legacy equipment. It integrates perfectly with all Fortinet solutions, but if you look at other third-party integrations—not on the networking part; but more on the security infrastructure part—it's more limited.

Its stability and scalability can be better. Aruba ClearPass is better in these aspects.

I have used it only in the last few years. I had to do a few propositions. It has been only two or three years since I have been familiar with the FortiNAC solution.

Its stability and scalability are slightly lower than Aruba. I have a personal preference for Aruba ClearPass, so I would rate FortiNAC a seven out of 10 in these aspects.

We have internal support, so I don't have any issues with it.

It is pretty easy and straightforward. A default implementation can take two days. It is not that complex, but it also depends on the use cases that you have for the FortiNAC solution. So, it can be a really simple implementation, but it can also be months of implementation depending on the use case.

I would advise really considering the use cases that you want to implement. That's because Fortinet has multiple license models. There are Base, Plus, and Pro licenses, and depending on the license model, you have more possibilities for integration. If you want to implement something like a premium device or guest management, you can't take the Base model. You have to directly go to the Plus model or even Pro. Similarly, if you want incident correlations and incident management, you have to go to the higher license version. So, you must consider all the use cases that you want to implement before you make a decision so that you take the correct version.

I would rate it a seven out of 10.