Fortinet FortiClient Reviews

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. 

We use the solution as an antivirus.

It is basically an anti-virus solution, but it is also very useful in that it tends to target all the vulnerabilities on the system, such as windows updates and application updates. Primarily it is used for Adobe related products and other applications.

Initially, the support was very poor. It is getting better, but they should continue to improve this.

Currently, we are having issues where the antivirus is blocking an item, but it is almost impossible to disable the antivirus. If the user wants to lift these priveledges they can't. Some options are not changeable. You cannot switch off a blockage even temporarily. I understand why it is like that, but I would like to give less control to these important processes because right now it is very complicated to turn off the protection even for testing purposes. 

The solution is perfectly stable.

The solution is very scalable. It just depends on the number of licenses an organization has. The enterprise management console is related to the number of clients, and the client interface itself is free to download. The upgrade of the enterprise license is dated, however. Currently, we have 100 licenses.

Previously we used Symantec's End Point protection. Forticlient is easier in that it is less demanding on our organization's hardware resources.

We previously used ESET also. 

The initial set up is now straightforward. Previously, about three years ago, I needed to take instructions from the web on how to download this enterprise solution in order to find out how to implement it. Now it's much better.

Currently, we are considering the license extension and that seems straightforward.

You only need two people for maintenance once it is deployed. 

We have previously used Symantec and ESET. I have not considered evaluating other options, but I update the information on the previous options I have used, and I'm following the latest trends. 

The functionality of the solution is pretty good. I think with every version the solution gets dramatically better.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

We are using FortiClient for five to six users. Our primary use for this solution is to access a resource in our partner's network. They manage our call center.

This allows us to connect with our client who uses the FortiGate Firewall solution.

This is a standard VPN client, and it works for our requirements.

I haven't found that that solution does anything amazing. There is nothing special about it. It works trouble free just like any other client.

It's pretty stable, and I don't have any problems with it.

Scalability doesn't apply to the client. It works on a single endpoint. Scalability is something that is relevant to the FortiGate Firewall, and we do not use that product.

Our partner is the one who runs the system, so if we need technical support then it is them that we contact.

The other one that we use is AnyConnect, which is for the majority of our remote users. Only one of our partners requires us to use FortiClient.

The setup is straightforward for a VPN client. The deployment takes about ten minutes.

The implementation and deployment were completed in-house.

We just installed the clients and put in the configurations.

Anyone can download this product for free, but you have to have a FortiGate gateway that you are connecting to.

This product is not terrible, but I don't have any basis in which to say that it is good.

Because we don't really have any problems with it, I would rate this product a ten out of ten.

The primary use case is for remote access from having encrypted tunnels for our users back into our firewall. It was what was available at that point. We no longer are using a Fortinet firewall, which was the reason we stopped using FortiClient. While it was available, it was a good solution.

We had some issues using IPsec as a remote tunnel protocol and we had to change those configurations from IPsec to SSL. That was the only issue we had with FortiClient during the four years we used it. 

Everybody else is doing AI, machine learning, self-healing, next-generation features. They should incorporate more next-generation features. 

The stability is excellent. 

It scaled very well. We had close to a hundred users running the solution without an issue.

Technical support was excellent. 

Before FortiClient we were using Microsoft RAS, Remote Access Server. We moved to FortiClient when we installed the Fortinet firewalls.

The initial setup was very straightforward. It was on demand. We would have our help desk level one technicians do the installation on the end user laptops. The deployment strategy was as needed or on demand. The deployment took half an hour of a level one technician's time.

We didn't have technical staff for this, it was a very simple software to deploy. We had a manual that we would give the users. It was a self-serve. Apart from our installation, it was very simple to use. It had a lot of options which we really didn't use like vulnerability assessment or patching. We just used it for remote access. 

We did the implementation ourselves. 

The return on investment was very reasonable. It was low cost and it functioned, so the return on investment was excellent. The integration was the firewall. Being able to a have firewall log that actually logged my FortiClient information and being able to have a centralized console to give me visibility, was the main reason we used FortiClient, because of its integration with the firewalls.

Licensing was free up to ten users and after that, it was pretty reasonable.

I would advise someone considering this solution to use as much functionality as possible on the endpoint. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. It fills remote access needs. I give it a seven because of the issues we had between IPsec and SSL. I also give it a seven for its cost, which is very low. It was a good product while I had it.

The primary use case is VPN.

Being able to work from outside the office, it has given us the ability to remotely access information securely.

Remote connectivity is its most valuable feature.

I would like simplicity in the being able to configure the software to use it without a lot of effort.

It's highly stable.

The scalability is limited.

The technical support has been good and helpful.

We were previously using Cisco. We switched because we switched the hardware.

We chose this solution because it is part of a bigger product solution and it has flexibility.

The initial setup was probably more complex. The configuration was somewhat unclear.

We used a reseller for the deployment, who was good.

The solution has helped increase staff productivity by approximately 15 percent.

It has improved our security posture by having this additional product.

Be open to what is out there. This particular solution is good, but there are other solutions out there that may make more sense for what you are trying to achieve.

We're using it for anti-virus, and its performance is okay.

Its benefit is that it provides virus protection.

FortiClient has good signatures, good protection and, up until recently, it integrated really well with our firewall.

I'm hoping they change the management system. The management is no longer applicable for us, so I want that to go back to the way it was.

The stability is excellent.

It is definitely scalable.

I haven't used tech support.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Our most important criteria when selecting a vendor are going to be price and manageability.

I would rate this solution as a seven because it worked fine, but things changed.