We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiGate-VM and McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Netgate, Fortinet, OPNsense and others in Firewalls."The ease of setting the solution up is a valuable aspect for us."
"Virtual Domains (VDOMs) are a feature that we found valuable."
"The interface is very good."
"Their interface is very easy to use, it is without bugs."
"The secure web gateway module and the application control module are valuable. HA operations are very easy."
"UTM/NGFW features and FortiCloud for logs and backups are awesome."
"The Fortinet FortiGate local partners were good. I did not have direct contact with Fortinet support."
"Fortigate represents a really scalable way of delivering perimeter network security, some level of layer 7 security, WAF, and also a way to create a meshed ADVPN solution."
"The most valuable features are network security, VLAN, network protection, and encryption are very valuable to us."
"It is very useful to make lists for rules and prepare firewall rules."
"The most valuable feature is the WAN optimization."
"It gives all the features of a full-fledged firewall with great performance."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiGate-VM are the servers, analyzer, and track protection."
"The most valuable feature is that its IPsec works perfectly."
"The most valuable features are the web proxy for protection and web gateway for deployment."
"The solution offers good documentation."
"It does give certain protection for everything that is well configured on our McAfee server. We have good protection with it. If we could find a feature and make it work, it would work perfectly, there would be no bugs, and it would be really good."
"Fortinet FortiGate could improve by having better visibility. Palo Alto has better visibility."
"Some of the features in the graphical user interface do not work, which requires that we used the command-line-interface."
"I would like to see more advanced developments of a wireless controller in the future."
"If they had better integration with security products, such as Cisco ISE or Rapid Threat Containment, then it would be an improvement."
"This product needs to have an analysis feature, rather than having the analysis done through the integration of a different product."
"Its reporting capabilities can be improved. It should have some out-of-the-box reporting capabilities and some degree of customization. The basic reporting that it currently has is not sufficient to create more usable reports. It needs some sort of out-of-the-box reporting. They try to make customers purchase FortiAnalyzer for this kind of reporting, which is an additional cost. Other firewall vendors, such as SonicWall and Sophos, provide this sort of reporting without any additional cost."
"The product does need better support in the cloud environment. It's not exactly cloud-native right now."
"They can do more tests before they release new versions because I would like to be more assured. We had some experiences where they release something new and great, but some of the old features are disabled or they don't work well, which impacts the product satisfaction. The manufacturer should be able to prove that everything works or not only that it might work. This is applicable to most of the other services, software, and hardware companies. They all should work on this. We cannot trust every new release, such as a beta release, on the first day. We wait for some comments on the forums and from other companies that we know. We always wait a few weeks before we use the updated version. They should also extend the VPN client application, especially for Linux versions. Currently, it has an application for Linux devices, but it doesn't work the way we want to connect to the VPN. They use only the old connection, not the new one. They have VPN client applications for Windows and Mac, but they can add more useful features to better manage the devices and monitor the current health of each device. Such features would be helpful for our company."
"Web filtering is a feature that needs some improvement. There should be some additional features to allow active users to change their own passwords."
"FortiGate should be more customer friendly and budgeted better."
"If I could add one feature, it would be free security profiles."
"Fortinet FortiGate-VM should improve its asset identification, wherein the device can identify assets on the network, like computers."
"The technical support is not very responsive and is an area that needs to be improved."
"The price is sometimes very expensive."
"The solution is fairly complex."
"The user interface could be improved."
"Customer support and AV are both lacking and are really hard to come to you when the product is installed. Those are the two major points that they need to work on."
Earn 20 points
Fortinet FortiGate-VM is ranked 9th in Firewalls with 113 reviews while McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Firewalls. Fortinet FortiGate-VM is rated 8.4, while McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiGate-VM writes "An easy-to-manage and configure tool that provides ample documentation to help with the setup phase". On the other hand, the top reviewer of McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] writes "For managing multiple MFE firewalls it is incredibly handy but it could be easier for customers to migrate from one version to another. ". Fortinet FortiGate-VM is most compared with Azure Firewall, Palo Alto Networks VM-Series, Fortinet FortiOS, OPNsense and Cisco Secure Firewall, whereas McAfee Firewall Enterprise MFE [EOL] is most compared with .
See our list of best Firewalls vendors.
We monitor all Firewalls reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
