Fortinet FortiGate-VM Reviews

In the years that we've been using this product, we've deployed it five or six times. Most of our customers have dedicated firewalls, either physical or virtual format and a few are on a shared platform. We're authorized sellers of the product and I'm the founder and managing director of our company. 

The best feature of the solution is the EPM bundle, a lot of our clients are interested in that. Truth be told, it's quite difficult to roll that out because we have very little trust in the FortiManager and the FortiAnalyzer integration and technology.

The solution could be improved by making deployment easier and dispensing with the reliance on FortiManager, as well as FortiAnalyzer to get any meaningful reporting out of it. If they could exclude both of those from the whole equation so that it bundles direct to the firewall, that would be a big improvement. It should be decoupled from the whole ecosystem, the security fabric side of it, and that would improve things. I get the feeling we have limited functionality if we just look at the data itself, and that's not cool when you're spending thousands of dollars on a product.

The technology is just not there yet in terms of UX and true integration. We have had endless woes with our Analyzer services and the Manager seems rather rudimentary on its own. We believe that the actual Fortigate should have all this disparate functionality baked-in.

I've been using this solution for close to six years. 

The stability is absolutely awful. Every time Fortinet releases a new version, there's always some bugs that you absolutely can't avoid, so stability from our perspective, in between maintaining the service on the FortiGate, is really tricky. It's difficult to trust the quality. 

The solution is scalable if you have the budget. If you don't have the budget, it's not tied into customer budgets very nicely. There are too many moving parts and it is too expensive.

Technical support is horrific, absolutely terrible. I'd give them a negative rating. 

To install a FortiGate is a complex task. The installation engineer need to be strong technically and familiar with FortiGate. The end user also needs to be well versed in their network and have a firm technical grasp on their business requirements and how those translate to what the firewall is capable of doing/ enhancing. This can drive a prolonged pre-install and installation process.

I would recommend this solution. As a piece of tech, as a firewall, it's really good. Local channel support in South Africa is very strong. The functionality of the gate is good. I think it probably surpasses many of its competitors. So I would recommend it. I'm very familiar with the realities of looking at it so I'll be very open with my customers in recommending FortiGate and at the same time explaining the pitfalls to them. 

I would rate this product a seven out of 10. 

We are service providers, and we provide managed services to external customers.

The primary use case of this solution is for firewalling, web applications, and proxying.

We use all of the UTM (Unified Threat Management) features that come with this product.

The most valuable features of this solution are the integration within the environment, with centralized reporting. 

One analyzer and the different devices feeding into that environment. 

The firmware is always up-to-date.

Compatibility and integration with other products or vendors such as Cisco SD-WAN products need improvement.

The multi-tenancy environment for multiple customers, to make it more secure, needs some improvement.

When you buy a bigger box, you should have the ability to slice and dice data. It should also have the ability to give customers either read and write or more privileged access to that environment. Specifically, to the environment that doesn't overflow into the other parts that have been sliced up.

I would like to see a type of portal for on-site deployment, where they can report into a cloud portal and have a high-level view of utilization. Basic indicators on the performance of the environment, including health status, should be displayed.

I have been using this solution for approximately six years.

We are completely satisfied with the stability of this solution.

Because we're sitting on a multi-tenant type of setup the scalability will depend on the customer's ability to upgrade.

Externally we have several customers that range from government to enterprise clients that use the product and we manage the backend. 

The number of users can range from a site that has 100 users to a site that has 2,000 to 3,000 users.

With the multi-tenant environment, we are able to use resources from multiple accounts. 

We run a 24/7 operation with various requirements, and have a team of 15 to 20 to maintain this solution.

We have plans to increase the usage as the requirement increases for more secure environments with more advanced features or other features within the security space. We would go from a standard firewall to maybe a web application firewall, or to authentication with the two-factor type of services.

Technical support is good. We work through a distributor and it's just a matter of a phone call to explain what needs to be done or a feature that we need to enable, and within an hour or two they come back to explain what has to be done.

They also give advice going forward with what to deploy.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

The implementation varies from being complex to being straightforward. It can take two to three weeks to implement with some tweaking afterward.

Part of the implementations comes with professional services from Fortinet themselves. In most cases, if it's a new version or a new deployment, we typically get the implementation services from a service provider rather than the vendor.

We have clients with three-year licensing and others with five. 

It's not a cheap solution but it comes with its benefits.

It's all bundled. When we purchase this product, it is bundled with a support license for that period.

With our clients, there is a range of Fortinet FortiGate versions, anything from FortiGate 60E to FortiGate 3700D. 

Management connects to a FortiAnalyzer, and we have application firewalls as well.

We have a centralized data center where we have a combination of customers with on-premises equipment. This includes small devices to secure the customer's environment, and larger devices at the data center, specifically for our customers.

We try to build our services around Fortinet products.

We prefer to work with Fortinet products based on what we have learned from the Gartner Magic Quadrant, and I recommend them.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The virtual and hardware versions of the solution are mostly the same. 

The VM it's very quick for deployment. If we need to have a POC for a customer, if we don't have any hardware physically at our premises, at our store, in our office, we can download the VM from Fortinet and install all the VM to their environment in order to run it. If we have a customer that says "let's start tomorrow" we are able to do that in a way that's not possible with a hardware version.

Normally Fortinet is very flexible that it supports almost all environments. 

The solution is user friendly.

The cost of the solution is pretty fair.

The documentation is very good.

The SD-WAN is very good, as compared to, for example, Citrix SD-WAN which has an overall lack of security and needs to leverage other devices, like Palo Alto, to cover this.

The licensing needs to be improved. We need longer licensing periods, especially for POCs and trials. It should be for six months. Right now, it's too short of a timeframe. 

Overall as I say, the features-wise and performance-wise the VM and hardware versions are the same. The main difference is that the hardware-based option ins is more powerful compared to the VM version. 

Their technical support is not helpful and I try to avoid using it.

I've been using the solution for ten years. It's been a decade now.

We do occasionally get bugs on the solution, and when that happens, we do need to go to technical support to get the issue resolved.

Let's say tomorrow we want to upgrade in terms of memory, in terms of processor. If we are VM  based we are using files and by default, we have some spec which is set to the VM. If tomorrow we need more capacity for this logging, we can just upgrade it. We take an analyzer like G1 or G5 and we upload the license, and it will upgrade automatically. 

It's so much easier as compared to hardware, due to the fact that, with hardware, you need to change everything completely. 

We have nine people on our team working with the solution regularly.

The support for Fortinet is not very good, and so I tend not to contact them if I can avoid it. They are not good in their general response time. Some team members are quite technical, however, that's not everyone, and you aren't guaranteed to get someone who knows what they are talking about. Sometimes their answers are irrelevant as if they aren't even replying to your actual questions. Other times they tell you what you need is not possible.   

Fortinet has forums for users, and if you go there, you'll see that there are a lot of others saying they are unhappy with support as well. While I'm a big fan of Fortinet, I do not like their support.

We only really use it now if we have an issue with a bug and there's no workaround except to go right to them. Otherwise, we don't contact them.

The cost of the solution is good.

Normally I don't really push a virtual appliance. Some customers may be interested in a virtual appliance for scalability. For most of our customers, we are pushing hardware-based solutions and not a virtual appliance.

For example, if we have a customer that has a private data center in Mauritius and wants to have a hybrid solution, let's say to interconnect on the public cloud, and they want to do SD-WAN to secure it from the public to its current on-premises data center, normally we will go with the virtual appliance on the public side. 

I would recommend Fortinet's hardware 100% of the time, especially in comparison to Palo Alto. With the VM, it's a harder question to answer. A better question would be: what do you will prefer for a next-generation firewall? Do you prefer Fortinet? Do you recommend Fortinet or Cisco or Palo Alto? I would say personally I always recommend Fortinet. I will continue to due to the fact that the cost and the integration, and the general user-friendliness, are all impressive.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd rate it higher if it had a longer trial, better licensing, and stronger technical support. There are still places for improvement in the solution.

I use FortiGate-VM for testing.

The user interface, stability, and scalability are the most valuable features. It's also simple to deploy. 

I have been using this solution for one year. 

Stability and scalability are okay. 

I haven't used technical support.

I like FortiGate-VM for constructing VPNs. It's easy to deploy. I would recommend it. It's quite easy.

I would rate FortiGate-VM a seven out of ten. Not a ten because I think that Cisco is better.

We provide Fortinet services to our clients, sometimes on-prem and sometimes on cloud. 
We are a system integrator which makes us a partner of Fortinet. I am an information technology solutions manager.

I like the web filtering and I like the IPS functionality.

Data reporting could be improved and also in terms of performance, some improvement should be made on VM, it should be more optimized. Scalability of the solution could also be improved. 

For an additional feature, Fortinet should add more SD-WAN with caching as a special functionality. It should be integrated with Fortinet. 

I've been using this solution for five years. 

Stability is good enough. It's not that problematic for now.

Scalability is a problem because the solution is VM. As a VM, you cannot have much scalability.

The Fortinet technical support is generally good. There are times when we don't get an immediate response and it requires escalation but that's all. 

The initial setup is straightforward. Deployment time depends on the case but can normally be done anytime from two hours to two days for it to be functional.

FortiGate-VM would be for more like a cloud or on-premise SMB environment. And for anyone wanting to scale-up and get big performance, it should be used as a physical appliance.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We primarily provide the solution to our clients. We typically use it in the financial services industry.

The solution is very easy to set up. It doesn't take a lot of time and offers a quick deployment, so you can start using it almost right away.

It's a very secure product. The security provided is excellent and an organization can feel very safe while using it.

The scalability of the solution needs to be improved.

The price model is not transparent by any means and should be made more clear. What's included in the packages is often not very obvious.

I've been using the solution for two years at this point.

The stability of the solution is pretty good. We don't have any blocks and we don't have problems with the solution in terms of bugs or crashes. We have a monitor. We have an aux for many services. It really is problem-free.

The solution has some issues with scalability. I wouldn't say it's easy to scale at all.

Also, with the pricing model being so confusing, companies can't really wrap their arms around what the final pricing would be when they scale up, which makes it difficult for budgeting purposes. 

We don't use technical support from Fortinet. Rather, we get it from a local company. They are okay. They aren't terrible, however, they could be better. Their service is average at best.

The initial setup is straightforward. We didn't find it to be complex at all. 

Deployment is quick and easy. It takes a maximum of two hours to handle everything.

The pricing of the solution is strange. We don't understand exactly how it's calculated or how it works.

We recommend this firewall often and we've actually used many solutions previously. Since we chose this one, we've been overall quite happy with the results. We recommend it largely due to the fact that we use the solution ourselves. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. If it wasn't for the pricing model and the scalability issues, I would rate it higher.

The client wants to use the solution for a mix of things, however, I can't recall exactly what they are at this time.

The user interface is the most valuable aspect of the solution.

It's important that, over time, the solution just keeps up with additional features. There's nothing specific that comes to mind, however, it's important for Fortinet to stay as much on the edge as possible, as far as keeping up with what's out there.

The solution is fairly complex.

I've probably been using the solution for three or four years at this point, although I'm not exactly sure.

We don't really need to worry about stability. Most of the time, what we were running into is just trying of get the client familiar enough with the solution, so that way they can deal with it going forward on their own. There's a little bit of training going on at the outset.

That's primarily why we steer clients in the direction of Fortinet. With this solution, clients have the potential to grow in the near future. It's just one of those items that we wanted to make sure they had. It's something that is robust enough to be able to handle growing. It's somewhat robust without breaking the bank, initially. 

Our organization doesn't use the solution ourselves, so we don't have a large number of users on the solution. Out of 160 people, maybe a third use it here. It's different, of course, with clients, who use it more extensively.

We've never had any technical issues on the solution and have never had to reach out to technical support. However, I've heard that they are quite helpful. I just can't personally speak to the quality or responsiveness of their services.

For those trying to troubleshoot on their own, the solution doesn't really need or have tutorials, however, you can find so much information online, it's not necessary. It would be nice it newly released features had a bit more information. It doesn't happen often, so it's not too big of an issue.

We previously worked with a lot of open source products.

The solution's initial set up was pretty complex. There were a lot of on-site VPN connections to set up, so we went through a lot of additional setup for the clients.

The deployment was pretty quicksand was probably completed in just a couple of days.

We didn't need a consultant or integrator. We handled the implementation ourselves.

Since we don't primarily work with the solution, I'm not sure what the licensing costs are.

We aren't really a customer or reseller, however, we do occasionally recommend the solution to clients from time to time.

The entity I was recently researching for was looking basically to replace some existing solutions. That was the reason why they were asking me to help them do some research. I, on a normal basis, don't do that much with it anymore. However, because I have access, I've been helping them.

I'm not using the latest version. I may be using the one before that, although I don't know the exact version number.

I would warn other organizations that there are some places where some people run into some roadblocks, and they're not sure what to do. My experience in the past has always been that, at least, the support is actually really good. Therefore, if they're running into a situation that they're not sure about, it's probably better to call and seek professional help, as opposed to trying to force it, because it can get confusing really quick.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The solution is mainly used for remote connectivity and endpoint and gateway network security.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the V-Scanner which is the monitoring software. That's something that I love. 

We are able to closely monitor the usages of individual users and see their usage habits and other items, including the data itself, which gives us quite a bit of visibility.

I think one thing we couldn't find in the software console was all of our logs. In the logs themselves, for example, we couldn't find if a user was accessing all of the VPN. We don't get to know or we don't have a report that shows on what date or for how long and from what time he user has logged on. We don't have that particular feature or that kind of visibility. That could be improved. Reporting, therefore, in general, could be improved.

The one thing that could be improved is the integration with the exchange. The gateway level controls can be enhanced a bit more. For example, it's still little here and there. You do get malicious attacks and suspicious emails like spam. It's not like Sophos where we got a lot of spam email, and yet, it's still relatively vulnerable. It can be upgraded, maybe with a fifth-generation firmware that it is ready for unknown threats. 

Especially after this pandemic situation, it requires a little more enhancement. For an SME level organization, it's okay, but when it comes to corporate and banking enterprises it still requires a lot of enhancement. Comparing it to Palo Alto, for example, it's still very behind the curve.

We've been using the solution for two years.

The solution is very stable. It's reliable, for the most part.

It's stable, comparatively, to the fifth generation UDL appliances or other software that is available in the market. It's quite stable for the integration. It still requires more of a formal enhancement for speedy patches and speedy updates.

The solution has a moderate amount of scalability potential. I wouldn't say it's the best, however, it is possible to scale it if you need to.

We have about 25-30 people on the VM currently.

We've never had to contact Fortigate's technical support, so I can't speak to their quality of service. If we have any issues on the solution, we tend to handle the problem internally.

We used to have Sophos and we shifted to Fortinet about two years ago.

The integration of the active directory with Sophos was not up to spec. We decided to drop it and instead went ahead with Fortinet.

The initial setup was a bit difficult. It's not perfectly straightforward. This may have been due to the fact that we were using ISA, which is pretty determined, and we had to migrate from ISA to Sophos and from Sophos to Fortinet. It was a little difficult, but not that complex.

For us, the implementation took about two weeks.

Each quarter we have a managed service contract with the integrator and they do any preventative maintenance every quarter. We have four visits in a year that we have agreed upon. Every quarter they come to us and they do some penetration testing and see the usability features and give us a report.

We outsourced the implementation to an integrator that handled the setup for us. They also handle quarterly maintenance for us.

The pricing of the solution is moderate. It's competitive, although I wouldn't consider it a cheap solution per se.

Aside from the licensing, there are some add-ons that need to be added that we personally haven't added. There are features such as content filtering, etc., that we haven't opted for. However, users can add them on if they need to for an additional cost.

We're just customers. We don't have a professional relationship with the organization. We're using the latest version of the solution.

I have learned that they have some internal resources available. However, those who are not trained and certified should not be experimenting with it. 

I'd advise other organizations that, if they don't have a proper administrator who can monitor and maintain their appliance, it's better they if don't implement it. It's not like somebody who has a background of software can handle Fortinet. They need to be properly trained and knowledgable.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten overall.

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.

We primarily use the solution simply for its firewall functionality. It's the main reason we use it.

For myself, the UI is pretty much perfect. It's much easier to work with than Cisco's FirePOWER, for example. I prefer the way it is designed above everything else, even though Cisco may be better for a different reason. Fortigate is just hands down more intuitive and therefore users need less training. While a non-tech person may need a bit of training in terms of configuration, it's still easier than Cisco.

In terms of general features, I find Fortigate and Cisco very comparable. They technically do the same things. Both can drill down by IP or region, so, application-wise, they're very much the same. 

The stability could be improved. I find Cisco to be more stable than Fortigate, which is I major differentiator between the two.

I haven't really explored the cloud too much, as we deal mostly with an on-premises system. However, now with everyone working from home due to COVID-19, it's something I'm beginning to explore and something I think Fortigate needs to invest in and expand on. If they could do something that integrates the cloud effectively, maybe with a cloud provider like Azure, that would be helpful.

Fortigate could speed up its level of customer service in our region.

I've been using the solution for quite a few years now. It's been perhaps five or six years in total.

While the stability maybe isn't quite to the level of Cisco, it is a very cost-effective solution. It's cheap compared to Cisco. Licensing is very, very easy. It's much, much easier than Cisco where licensing is a pain. The Cisco licensing is very difficult to configure, which makes Fortigate a more attractive alternative even with less stability. 

That said, after working with Fortigate for many years, I haven't really encountered a lot of crashes or glitches. The hardware is very, very good. Once a power adapter failed on us and we just replaced it on the device and it was able to recover. With ASA, I can say so far so good. The hardware's really good. They've improved a lot of the hardware specs.

We haven't had any issues with scalability. If a company needs to build it out or expand, they really shouldn't have any issues.

The customer support for Fortigate is fine. Compared to Cisco, however, I would say Cisco's response might be a bit faster. If a device fails, they'll be onsite to replace it themselves. In my region, in terms of Fortigate's response to a similar event, users would have to go through the distributor and not directly to Fortigate. That's why it takes longer. It could be a bit easier, and if they did it a bit more like Cisco, I think it would be better. However, Fortigate's response isn't bad.

The initial setup was straightforward. A company just needs to get requirements from its customers and then they can just deploy. It's not complex at all.

Deployment takes about two weeks. The setup itself is very fast and you will have limited downtime. However, there will be fine-tuning that will be required and this may take weeks. If a customer gives new requirements at any time, you'll need to make some tweaks.

With Cisco, licensing is quite complex, but with Fortigate, you simply need to buy a bundle and they give you everything you'll require.

Right now, I'm also interested in learning more about Cisco, and how it compares to Fortigate. I know Cisco quite well, but I've never directly compared Cisco and Fortigate together before. Of course, I still believe I know Fortigate better.

We're resellers of both Cisco and Fortigate solutions.

I'd advise other companies or users to give a try. The Virtual Appliance is very easy to set up. In terms of scalability, it's easy enough to expand out, especially if you compare it to the hardware. For the virtual solution, it's easily upgraded. For the physical, you need to do a POC.

It really depends on what kind of distributor a company is working with. Some provide you all the resources. Others don't. I'm not sure how it works with the Cisco Virtual Appliance. For Cisco, I only know about the cloud. 

Normally, I provide my customer with Meraki. I won't provide a Cisco solution, even though Meraki is part of Cisco.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. There's still room for improvement. There could be a bit better support and not all solution providers offer this kind of Virtual Appliance in my region. Once more people use it, they may begin to improve on it even more.