Fortinet FortiClient Reviews

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.

I use FortiClient to connect my home office to the company.

FortiClient's most valuable features are that it's fast and safe.

We've had some problems with having to remove the current version and either reinstalling an old version or updating to the new one.

I've been using Fortinet FortiClient for four to five years.

Previously, I used Check Point but switched to FortiClient as it's much cheaper.

The initial setup was easy.

I would give FortiClient a rating of nine out of ten.

We use Fortinet FortiClient as our VPN client. We have about 50 users.

It is very simple to use. I've used some of the others in the past, such as Cisco AnyConnect, which was a nightmare. I've used a couple of others, but FortiClient is very simple to use.

With the lower-end licenses, it tends to kick you out after eight hours. There is a function where it automatically kicks you out after eight hours. They could improve that and not kick you out after eight hours. Other than that, it is already pretty good.

I have been using this solution for two and a half years.

It is reliable.

Their support is very good.

It is easy to set up. You just download the client, and then you put your details in, and it takes you in. 

It is a good solution, and we don't have any plans to switch to another solution. It is simple to use, simple to download, and reliable. It is the best VPN client I've used.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

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 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.

It's useful to permit users working from home to connect to the internal infrastructure, sort of as an on-prem resource, in a secure way.

I find it very easy to configure and also very stable. It integrates well with Windows 10.

An area of improvement could be better integration with the active directory. I did not find it easy to configure.

I worked with different versions of Fortinet for two years, specifically in 2019 and 2020. I used it to configure the server part of the FortiClient.

It is a stable solution.

It's not very scalable. We don't have a lot of availability. We only have one gateway and the clients connect to it.

It depends on the product you buy based on the performance, but you can start from 200 and above.

The customer service and support are good. Although, the only point I don't like is that they take too much time to escalate the case. You have to do a lot of things yourself, even if it's something that needs their attention, so it's quite difficult to escalate it a little bit.

The initial setup is quite easy. It's not so much about the technical staff as it is about the initial configuration on the firewall side. This includes setting up certificates for secure connections and creating groups for users. It requires understanding what is needed for each group and user and then configuring it accordingly. If it's a new deployment, it's quite easy. However, it could be more difficult if you need to replicate it from other systems.

The deployment process involved several steps to ensure the solution was properly configured and accessible.

First of all, we had to configure the company's firewall to ensure it was deployed correctly. Then we had to configure the interface to connect to the system, set up certificate group user policies, and configure all the necessary steps. After that, we had to install FortiClient and configure it correctly to ensure the resources were accessible.

The deployment process took around two weeks to complete, but that was because we had to ensure everything was configured correctly and tested thoroughly before it could be fully implemented.

There are no licensing fees for the VPN.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

We have more than 1200 users.

The connection speed is fast. I can connect quickly at any time, and there are never any interruptions to the FortiClient connection. I could easily code into the client's server with that connection, with no lag.

I would like Fortinet to improve FortiClient's compatibility with macOS.

I've used FortiClient for more than a year. 

FortiClient is stable. 

The setup was managed by the infrastructure team. They just sent me a laptop with FortiClient already installed. 

I rate FortiNet FortiClient eight out of 10.

We are using an on-site EMS server for this product and our clients install it on their workstations. I'm a security officer and we are customers of Fortinet. 

The valuable features for us are the integration of the vulnerability scan, mobile detection, and VPN client. The advantage of FortiClient for us is the integration with FortiGate and that they support Linux, which most other solutions do not. One-third of our users have Linux workstations.

FortiClient has compatibility issues between different versions, for example, the VPN doesn't work well between FortiClient 6.4 and FortiGate. There are usability issues with vulnerability scanning and with reporting. It's often difficult to interpret and there are inadequate features in management identity. I would appreciate a better explanation of the findings of the malware scanning and of things like real-time protection. The solution is geared toward centralized single sign-on for the workstations, which is something we do not have. From that point of view, it's not a good match. I've also found the SSL VPN very sensitive to network disruptions. The anti-ransomware feature is hard to use because when it finds something, it doesn't provide adequate information and there are false positives that are hard to identify. Generally, it's difficult to access the documentation of the APIs as it requires an invitation via sponsorship from a Fortinet employee. We had some long-running issues, but that's perhaps because our configuration is not mainstream.

I've been using this solution for over a year. 

We haven't had any crashes, so the product is stable. We have problems with the stability of the VPN connection which tends to disconnect, but my impression is that it's just sensitive to network disruptions and is not related to the solution.

It's hard for me to comment on scalability because we are a company of 50 employees. We have one person who deals with maintenance for a minimal amount of time.

The technical support could be improved because it takes time to get through the first level of support, where you have to prove your case. When you get to where you need, it gets better, but just to get to someone who understands the problem can be tedious. We had some technical problems that they were never able to resolve.

The solution can be set up manually which can be quite complex on some operating systems because it requires a lot of manual settings. It can also be set up on Linux but they only support some distributions. 

I believe that licensing costs $500 per year for a 25-seat pack. It's a reasonable price although for small businesses, the disadvantage is that you have to buy a minimum 25 licenses.

I rate this solution six out of 10.