Fortinet FortiNAC Reviews

We are primarily using Fortinet FortiNAC for network security, and it is used by more than fifty end-users in our organization.

Fortinet helps reduce after-sales support needs because the failure rates are very low. This leads to better efficiency as ninety percent of our technology is up and running without any issues.

The solution offers good features like IPS and DLP. These are effective in improving network security.

Support requires improvement as it has declined over time. There are also issues with pricing, as costs are being increased. Moreover, there are problems with the GUI when doing subnetting of IP addresses, and the spam filtering is not effective.

I have been working with Fortinet for more than 18 years.

The product is very stable. My rating for stability is nine out of ten.

After about four years, a hardware upgrade to a higher device model is required. My scalability rating is eight.

The first-level support is not up to the mark. The response time has increased, and the lower tiers sometimes have difficulty understanding our issues.

Neutral

The initial setup with basic features takes a few hours. However, a full setup, including security, can take almost a day.

We have a team for implementation. I am the CTO and am involved in designing and handling security aspects.

The solution provides a financial benefit as the support required after sales is minimal.

While not extremely expensive, Fortinet's pricing is increasing, becoming less affordable over time.

We provide and work with multiple product lines, including security, backup, and DR solutions. We work across different product lines depending on client budget.

I would recommend FortiNAC to other users.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Our customers use Fortinet to protect their networks and administer their users. It is mainly used in the healthcare industry.

The platform's benefits vary according to each customer's preferences and budget. It generally fits within their budget, making it a viable option.

The initial setup process needs improvement. I suggest improving the support team's responsiveness to reduce delays when issues arise.

I have been working with Fortinet for approximately five years, primarily as an integrator.

The solution is generally stable. However, some bugs need to be addressed with updates. I rate the stability an eight. 

Our customers are enterprise institutions. I rate the product scalability as nine. 

I rate the initial setup process an eight. 

The product cost is moderate. I rate the pricing a seven. 

The product's feature for access control is a key component providing effectiveness in securing the network. It integrates well with other security solutions, with fewer challenges than other products.

I recommend it as it is a good product, easy to install, and integrates well. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

The primary use case for this solution is to enhance network security within our organization. We utilize it in various environments, adapting to customer networks which sometimes require setting up power and routing due to multiple lines.

The solution has significantly reduced our operational costs related to network security and has streamlined network security management.

The most valuable features include DNS protection and web filtering, which are effective against hackers and ransomware. Although ransomware remains challenging to identify, these features enhance our overall security.

The product's pricing and configuration process needs improvement. 

I have been using Fortinet FortiNAC since 2010. 

I would rate the stability of this solution as a nine out of ten.

I would rate the product scalability as an eight out of ten.

The customer service and support are excellent.

Positive

We have used different solutions before.

The initial setup was straightforward, with no significant problems. The duration of the installation varied based on the complexity of the customer's network.

I implemented the product myself. 

The product pricing is reasonable.

We evaluated other options, including Cisco.

I rate Fortinet FortiNAC a nine out of ten. 

The primary use case that I have with the FortiNAC is allowing non-domain machines onto the domain Wi-Fi. Windows machines are easy to get onto a secured internal network because we control them, but for other devices such as Macintosh devices, TVs, and printers that we need to get access to the network, we want to be able to do that without having to hand out a password.

I also use it to condense my SSIDs down to one. We have a number of different wireless devices that require their own separate network, and instead of having three or four, or even five different SSIDs, one for each use, I am able to have a single SSID for all of them. This means I can have four or five different devices all with four to five different internal networks, but they all connect to the same wireless network. That has been helping me clean the air and also secure the connection with non-Windows devices into the internal domain.

The FortiNAC features I found the most valuable are security and the ability to consolidate wireless networks.

One of the biggest issues with Fortinet FortiNAC is that it is not intuitive and has a high learning curve.

I have been using Fortinet FortiNAC for a year.

I did not have any issues with the stability of this solution. I have a single instance that is pushed out across 20+ campuses and some use it more while others use it less. Once a device has been connected, set up, and programmed for, I've got little to no complaints about it. So, once it's up and running and set up correctly, I have had no issues with it.

My impression is that it is a scalable solution, but you have to either plan it or pay for it. You can buy additional instances and scale out more that way. The scalability becomes more of a network-wide logistical issue.

This product is quite complex to set up and you have to purchase two or three days' worth of professional installation, which is an added initial expense. This is understandable because it is not something you can pick up and just run with.

I can do the maintenance and updates myself, but I have been able to push some of the basic deployment tasks down to local technicians. I am able to do everything else on my own.

The biggest return on investment has been the security part of the solution. I can be sure that no one gets on my wireless internal network except for the devices IT people add on there because you can't add it with a password.

The other point on ROI is that it saves us time and money by enabling us to not have to come up with alternate solutions and other specialized hardware if I need to connect anything that does not easily fit in.

We have limited the licenses to only specific users and specific roles. We are using around 250, but we have a license for up to a thousand, and I am hoping to be able to expand that at some point.

When you buy the initial product, you pay for a license per device. They are perpetual licenses, so once you purchase them, you are good. Support after that is optional. When we got support, we got it for the appliance. There are hardware appliances, but we just went with a virtual appliance. A thousand licenses for up to a thousand users and three years of support, all came out to around $22,000.

I would rate FortiNAC a nine out of ten.

There are some features that are working well.

Technical support tries to be helpful, however, they just don't understand the technology.

We have tried to do a small POC and it failed. 

I had a bad experience with FortiNAC. The customer was asking for a NAC solution. I suggested FortiNAC. The switch with the customer was Cisco and it was not integrated with Cisco. We tried to provide him with a FortiSwitch as the core switch and the solution worked. It's working, however, not the expected way for the customer. The issue is it just doesn't integrate with Cisco switches. 

They need to change or upgrade the technology in the product.

The solution is not stable.

We have not been able to scale the product.

It's very hard to set up.

The solution is not stable. We've had some issues with the performance. It hasn't gone well. 

The product does not scale. 

The technical support is not the greatest. Some of the people need more training in the product. They aren't very helpful. 

The technical team from Fortinet, they are working with us. They have supported us. However, the problem is they don't have the knowledge on this product. This is the problem. The support team is good and is the best support team in all the products I work on it. However, the problem is they don't have knowledge about the FortiNAC. 

Neutral

It's not easy to set up. In terms of the ease of setup, I'd rate it at a one out of five. It's very difficult. 

I'd rate the pricing at a three out of five. It was not expensive, however, it is also not cheap. 

I've also looked at HP and compared the two solutions. HP is less expensive, however, it's not a huge difference. We're talking maybe a 1% to 2% difference in price if you compare them. A customer will pay more for HP if they do a POC. 

We are a partner and reseller of Fortinet solutions.

We did not have good luck with this product. It didn't work for my client. Maybe it works in other setups better, however, for us, it just was a disaster. 

I'd rate the product at a three out of ten.

I was a distributor and system integrator of FortiNAC. We were opening a lot of tickets and there were lots of bugs, so I replaced it with Forescout very easily. Within two days, I replaced everything. With FortiNAC, I was just doing the implementation, making things work properly, and beginning testing after five days.

FortiNAC is deployed on-prem. They're not major enough to be on cloud. Even on-prem is not doing good.

Version 9.1 has been an improvement on previous versions. It's a good solution for SMB.

Any NAC solution has three to four phases. The first phase is discovery and classification. They do discovery, but they are lacking a lot of features in terms of classification. Also, they don't do a lot of classifications. They cannot help you if, for example, you're classifying Windows, and you want to check which Windows version it is, like Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 10. It's a little bit difficult. It's not easy like the other products. 

Classifications and visibility need to be improved a lot. They have to start work on being agentless. Agentless means they need to have strong integration with Windows. They need to use the RTC. They cannot force people to have an agent for people who are going to the domain. There needs to be compatibility with switches. For any NAC solution, all the inputs will be through switches. So if it is not compatible with switches, this is a big disaster. When I was doing their switches, there were a lot of customers whose switches were not compatible with FortiNAC.

If these things are well-designed, then they can compete in the NAC market. And also in terms of IOT, they cannot discover the IOT things perfectly or the OT, operation technology, things.

In terms of HA, they're having a lot of problems. You just need to put the HA between two clients, and you have a lot of problems. There are problems with the classifications. In terms of control, they're not doing well. They cannot do integration with SCCM, for example. They have a lot of things missing.

I started using FortiNAC since Fortinet bought it in 2018. They bought it with Bradford, and I was one of the few people in Saudi who knows FortiNAC. I have known FortiNAC since it was 7.2, and there were a lot of bugs. Even now, 8 has a lot of bugs.

Now they have jumped to 9.1 and 9.2. I used version 9.1.2. They just changed the dashboard, but it's still agent based. I deeply know what FortiNAC is doing, and it's not doing good. I used to work with them, and then I left. Now, I'm purely working with Forescout technology.

It's not a stable solution. If you want to do the HA, suddenly both appliances will be gone. Both FortiNAC and Forescout are being built on CentOS Linux. Doing HA with FortiNAC, which should be very simple, is just a disaster. I know three customers who are complaining.

I have switched to Forescout because in regards to technology, application, visibility, and control, Forescout is unbelievable. Forescout is a great platform for OT things.

I would rate this solution 5 out of 10. 

It's a difficult solution. I used to be the FortiNAC guy, so I will be tough on them. In Saudi, I was the number three FortiNAC guy.

I can recommend FortiNAC for SMBs: small and medium businesses, but they will still suffer. I would recommend Forescout more.

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 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.