Fortinet FortiClient Reviews

The primary use case of this solution is to connect internal applications, as an internal data center.

Compared to other similar solutions, it is faster in connecting.

When we change our endpoint, we have to connect again, which means having to enter our credentials and permissions. Also, we are facing some connectivity issues after changing our mode of connection to a public base. It's slow in reconnecting.

I would like to see changes to the speed in the end-user connectivity improved in the next release of FortiClient.

I have been using this solution for six months.

I have contacted technical support and find they are helpful and have a quick response time.

The initial setup is not as complex as other solutions.

You can deploy it easily, and you always have the technical support available should you need it.

The pricing is reasonable.

In terms of a traditional VPN, I can recommend this product.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution with our firewall.

We have a hybrid-cloud deployment.

FortiClient is not communicating with the new version of the firewall.

This is a stable solution, although I get disconnected sometimes.

This solution is scalable.

We have approximately three hundred users.

I am satisfied with the technical support for this solution.

The initial setup of this solution is easy.

I took care of the deployment myself.

This is a solution that I recommend.

While there are some issues that need to be fixed, they are minor.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for remote access.

The solution's most valuable feature is its integration capabilities. The processing is fast and the reporting is also very good.

The pricing of the solution should be less expensive. 

 It would be nice if you could connect to three or four sites at a time.

The solution is very stable. I can use it up to eight hours a day with no problem.

The scalability could use improvement.

The technical support for the solution is great. We had a case previously where the tech team quickly responded to our needs. They're very fast.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

I would recommend the solution. You can use it anytime, anywhere, even from the beach if you wanted to.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's very functional.

We implement FortiClient software for our VPN users. We have so many important users who connect through the VPN from their offices and home.

We are using the latest version.

We use it configure the user's gateway and set up authentication through our firewall site. Then, we ask the user to login. Once the authentication get approved, the user will get access to resources. 

It is very easy and useful. A normal user with basic information can easily connect to any environment.

It is good.

It is good.

Technical support is awful. Their online response time is not prompt. They should not respond after four or five days. Their support guys are not competent enough. Small issues are taking time. They are not quick like Dell EMC or Microsoft on chat. Those companies will log into your environment, look at the issue, and resolve the case.

The price is okay and competitive.

I would recommend FortiClient. This is a really good security product in the market.

They have good products which they are improving.

Our primary use case for this solution is endpoint synchronization.

I deal with all of the security vendors, and this is one of the products that I have experience with. The deployment is on-premises and is used in conjunction with our firewall.

From an application perspective, this solution is stable.

I feel that this product is more to bolster their marketing, rather than its use for actual synchronization.

This solution is not able to deliver interprocess visibility when it comes to the endpoint, and this is something that needs to be done. Other solutions, such as Carbon Black, are able to do this.

The memory check needs to be improved, giving better visibility into the run-time memory.

The anti-exploitation engine needs enhancement. When it comes to Windows processes and protocols, they need to be included in a more effective way. As it is now, they simply have a checkmark beside it. They have visibility of the protocol, for Windows and the operating system communication, but they are not offering the same level as other solutions, such as Sophos, when it comes to the endpoint.

The level of data protection provided by this system is inconsistent.

With respect to application stability, this is a stable solution. However, it is not consistent with respect to data protection.

While I have not tested the scalability to this point, my understanding is that this is a highly scalable solution. The biggest issue in this regard is on the accounting side, for the licensing.

I have worked with, and am familiar with many security solutions. These include Palo Alto, Fortinet, Malwarebytes, Sophos, and Carbon Black.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

I am the system integrator, and I handled the deployment of this solution.

Fortinet requires you to buy a lot of product in order for you to have proper protection.

When it comes to Fortinet, the users are not a big fan of their current model. Bit by bit, they pull you into to buying the entire security fabric. You have to buy a lot of product, and a lot of licenses, to enable all of the features which will help you to secure your environment. This is unlike other solutions, where you have the ability to buy a particular product and it will do its job from the start to the end.

I'm thinking that they are trying to move to the McAfee model, where everything is a separate license that needs to be added. You have to buy a lot of product to get the perfect solution. 

For me, the suitability of a solution often comes down to the price. Nobody is going to complain about the installation. I will design the solution and it will be the most secure solution, ever.

I would rate this solution a four out of ten.

We use the private deployment model of this solution. Our cloud provider is Microsoft. Our primary use case of FortiClient is for administrative purposes.

The configuration is the most valuable feature. It is also simple and easy to use. 

The pricing could use improvement. It should be cheaper. 

The reporting can also always be better. 

It is stable. 

We have around ten users using this solution. They are primarily system administrators. We require only three people for the maintenance. 

Their technical support is good. I am satisfied with them. 

We previously used Palo Alto. We switched because we are using Fortinet for the whole network. 

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment only took a few minutes. 

We first used the reseller for the deployment but then did it ourselves. 

We also looked at Meraki and Cisco. 

It's a good solution. It works fine. It's the right solution if you use Fortinet. If we didn't have Fortinet, we wouldn't use it. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

We use the on-prem deployment model of this solution. Our primary use case is for the customer side and to connect some external sites to our customer.

The most valuable feature is that it's easy to deploy. Deployment, configuration, and troubleshooting are very easy. 

My customers say they need a consultation to fully integrate services. This needs improvement. I would like to see better integration. 

The price could also use improvement. 

In the next release, some of our clients said that while they can select different customers, they get confused and they would like to also see the logo of the company. The name is written but they want to see the logo as well. 

In previous versions there were some bugs but from 5.6 onwards, it's been good and we've had no issues.

Scalability is very good. It's easy to expand the platform and add users. In my company, we have more than 100 users. 

We only require one staff member for deployment and maintenance. 

Technical support will open cases if there is an issue.

We also Cisco and Sophos solutions as well. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. The deployment took around 15 minutes. 

I deployed it myself. 

We also looked at FortiGate. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. Not a ten because nothing is perfect. 

Our primary use case of this solution is for VPN connections. We use this program for VPN connection and antivirus purposes. We use the program each and every day.

We had challenges with managing our use of in terms of daily usage. The moment we deployed FortiClient we were able to start managing our user's usage of the internet. I'd say it has greatly improved our organization because now we don't have people spending too much of their time on unauthorized websites. 

The most valuable feature of this program is the web filtering, because it allows me to control my users to be safe on the internet. I can put limitations on what I don't want them to surf on the internet.

I would like to see an improvement in the web filter, because I think it can be more user-friendly. For instance, if I want to authorize a user to access a certain website, it should be easy for that user to edit those websites on the exempted list. But sometimes I find that my users can't do that when I am not at the office. Due to the fact that some of our users operate remotely, it sometimes happen that they can't access a specific website. Then I have to go through all the websites, or dive into the users machine just so that I can change the configuration. I therefore think it should be a little bit easier for a user to add a certain website to the exempted list. 

Something else that should be worked on, is the compatibility issues between versions 6.2 and 6.0, because it is not easy to upgrade your firewall to the latest version with admin. If you want to upgrade, you need a hardware change. 

We haven't had any stability issues or viruses since we started using FortiClient. 

I think the solution is highly scalable. If you know how to deploy the solutions to other clients, scalability will be smooth. We currently have 30 users. Only one of the users is an admin and the rest are customers, or end-users. We do have plans to increase our usage, because our company is growing, and that means that our number of FortiClient customers will increase.

The technical support gets a seven out of ten rating from me. They are okay.

We used Symantec Endpoint Protection but then we decided to standardize our operation and then we started using FortiClient too. So instead of having each and every user using a different antivirus on different machines, we decided to standardize even though some of our users still had valid Symantec licenses. At that time we had two antiviruses running at the same time and two solutions running at the same time.

In the end, we decided to use FortiClient in our environment, because it offered VPN connection and antivirus purposes.

The initial setup was straightforward and it took me about an hour to deploy the program on our premises. I did the deployment myself, because I am responsible for the IT operations.

An annual license costs about 1.5 to 3,000 US dollars. There are no additional costs.

I would rate it a seven out of ten. My advice to others would be that they should standardize whatever they are running on their environment. If they are going for FortiClient, especially the 6.2 version, they need to standardize or upgrade their computer to standard specifications. I will also advise them to read the instructions so that they don't have any issues when they deploy FortiClient. They should plan accordingly before deploying FortiClient. Once they are sure about the policies they want to implement, they can proceed and deploy FortiClient. That would save them on deployment time and on troubleshooting if things go wrong. Proper planning is required before the deployment of FortiClient.

One of the biggest lessons I learned after a long struggle, was when some of my users were being denied access to a certain website some were marked as malicious and some were not suitable for viewing. My initial thought was that the firewall was the problem and that it was blocking all these users from accessing these websites. But I later realized that it wasn't the firewall blocking them, but FortiClient.