Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Citrix Secure Private Access vs FortiSASE comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Citrix Secure Private Access
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
ZTNA (14th)
FortiSASE
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.1
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

Citrix Secure Private Access and FortiSASE aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Citrix Secure Private Access is designed for ZTNA and holds a mindshare of 2.5%, up 0.7% compared to last year.
FortiSASE, on the other hand, focuses on Secure Access Service Edge (SASE), holds 7.3% mindshare, up 5.4% since last year.
ZTNA Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Citrix Secure Private Access2.5%
Tailscale17.3%
Twingate15.0%
Other65.2%
ZTNA
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
FortiSASE7.3%
Prisma Access by Palo Alto Networks15.5%
Netskope12.3%
Other64.9%
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE)
 

Featured Reviews

SK
Zero trust architecture strengthens security with seamless login experiences and reliable global access
The solution requires proper configuration and policy enforcement to avoid excessive access restrictions. Some applications may need additional integration efforts for seamless access, and I may face restrictions if device posture fails compliance checks. The licensing cost could be higher compared to traditional VPN solutions, and advanced features may require premium tiers and add-ons. Initial setup and policy tuning can be complex, especially in large environments.
Yusuke Murasato - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient access control and authorization with easy configurations
The important aspects are twofold. One is authorization, and the second is access control. FortiSASE can operate in a cloud environment with client certificates for authorizations and access control using features like PostureCheck. The service assesses device security, checking updates on antivirus software and confirming Windows OS specifications. I can use it anywhere I want as long as I have an Internet connection. It's very easy to configure the environment.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Virtual desktops and virtual apps are most valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Citrix Secure Private Access is its Zero Trust architecture, which enhances security by granting access based on identity and device posture."
"It is easy and simple, and it has got an easy interface. It is not hard to learn. With just three clicks, you log in, and you're there."
"The solution is easy to deploy and simple to manage."
"It is easy to integrate with Fortinet."
"We built a local node in Jordan, which is the main advantage. The data is localized in-country."
"The product can scale."
"This advantage is having the ability to create an SPA unit of FortiGate."
"I find Fortinet to be competitive with its firewalls."
"It is highly scalable."
"Deep packet inspection is easier to deploy in the FortiSASE environment. It's much simpler to configure one-touch deployment. It was considerably more convoluted to get that to work using FortiClient. All that processing horsepower is happening in Fortinet's cloud infrastructure, reducing the load on our local routers and on-prem FortiGate firewalls."
 

Cons

"When we go to print, we have to go through secure print. The secure printing kind of takes a while. It is a little latent."
"The licensing cost could be higher compared to traditional VPN solutions, and advanced features may require premium tiers and add-ons."
"INGPU for engineering software is an area of improvement."
"While stability is generally good, we faced some difficulties during updates."
"FortiSASE is an expensive product and the cost is indeed high."
"While connectivity from outside to inside is okay, inside to outside is not."
"Improvements should focus on security. Although FortiCASB performs well in many areas, I believe its security aspects could be enhanced further."
"FortiSASE is a work in progress. One area where there is room for improvement is the ability to use FortiSASE on an endpoint that doesn't have the client on it. Other solutions do that by building a VPN tunnel from their on-prem router into the SASE environment. FortiSASE doesn't have that feature yet, but it is on the roadmap for Q3 of this year. I've seen it in their development environment."
"I do not recommend FortiSASE for everyone."
"The current high-tech version of FortiSASE is not recommended due to its heavy loading."
"The GUI and connectivity, along with the support offered, are some of the areas of concern in the product where improvements are required."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There are costs in addition to the standard licensing fees. They should provide better licensing options."
"I rate the product price an eight on a scale of one to ten, where one is high price, and ten is low price."
"I rate the product's price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a three out of ten."
"I can only speak about the pricing for education users because we get discounts. Other users aren't going to get the same price, but FortiSASE is competitive with the other products out there. All the solutions came in at the same price, so it just came down to the product that works best for us."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which ZTNA solutions are best for your needs.
868,183 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise5
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Citrix Secure Workspace Access?
The solution requires proper configuration and policy enforcement to avoid excessive access restrictions. Some applications may need additional integration efforts for seamless access, and I may fa...
What is your primary use case for Citrix Secure Workspace Access?
I primarily use Citrix Secure Private Access ( /products/citrix-secure-private-access-reviews ) for Zero Trust Network Access ( /categories/ztna ), granting access based on user identity, device se...
What advice do you have for others considering Citrix Secure Workspace Access?
I rate Citrix Secure Private Access overall at eight. Although Citrix licensing can help customers save costs where Citrix environments are present, improvements are necessary given the competition...
What do you like most about FortiSASE ?
The integration with the company's existing security infrastructure enhanced our security posture since it was a straightforward process.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FortiSASE ?
The pricing, licensing, and setup costs of FortiSASE are very advantageous if you are already a Fortinet customer. If you have FortiGate, the Fortinet firewall, it will be a very good solution for ...
What needs improvement with FortiSASE ?
The secured browser of FortiSASE has room for improvement. Palo Alto has a more mature security browser than Fortinet.
 

Also Known As

Citrix Secure Workspace Access, Citrix Access Control, Citrix Secure Internet Access
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

The Messenger
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Citrix Secure Private Access vs. FortiSASE and other solutions. Updated: May 2023.
868,183 professionals have used our research since 2012.