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

Fortinet FortiSandbox vs MetaDefender 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

Fortinet FortiSandbox
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
Threat Deception Platforms (6th)
MetaDefender
Ranking in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
37th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Anti-Malware Tools (37th), Threat Intelligence Platforms (TIP) (38th), Cloud Detection and Response (CDR) (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) category, the mindshare of Fortinet FortiSandbox is 5.4%, down from 7.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of MetaDefender is 0.9%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Fortinet FortiSandbox5.4%
MetaDefender0.9%
Other93.7%
Advanced Threat Protection (ATP)
 

Featured Reviews

Abdelhamid Saber - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Security & Infra Technology Systems Engineer at BARQ Systems
Enhanced network security with adaptable integration and really good support
We use FortiSandbox for scanning files and images that pass through our networks. It integrates with different devices, such as five adapters and other Fortinet devices It is time-saving and more secure. It saves us from a lot of antivirus and anti-malware issues. The adapter is beneficial as it…
Eido Ben Noun - PeerSpot reviewer
Cyber Security Architect at Diffiesec
Multi‑engine detection has significantly improved secure file transfers and threat prevention
Some feedback indicated that it takes too much time to configure certain policies because there are many options. Some people appreciate this because you can configure anything, but I believe MetaDefender should have a wizard or general policies that can be used for 80 percent of customers. I use the expanded file type and archive coverage feature sometimes, especially for customers who try to scan large archives with the deep scan capabilities of OPSWAT and Deep CDR. This provides full protection because it scans every single file, but sometimes it takes too long. When discussing CAB files or archives for patching or server updates and BIOS updates and operating system updates, the scanning process takes too long, and it was difficult for customers who sometimes decided not to scan because the scanning time was excessive. I use the reporting and audit visibility features. Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand. If something requires checking and then referring to documentation to understand it, that is too much for most users. When looking at one of the statistics, you can see how many files have been scanned and then you see a number out of 500 or a different number if you change it. It is not a number of files or scan processes; it is a number of files inside a file. When you scan a PowerPoint presentation file, for example, it counts as forty different files because of all the sub-files. I understand from customers that when they look at the visualization data or statistics, they do not understand what is happening there. Most customers I see do not use the file-based vulnerability assessment feature. It has some good results about vulnerabilities, but I am not certain if it is that helpful because many organizations, when they deploy a file and see that there are vulnerabilities, still deploy it because it is part of the code. It can produce results, but those results do not cause any action. Many products have something more advanced than vulnerabilities and static scoring. They have tools that can inform you about a vulnerability, whether the vulnerability is exploitable, if it is weaponized, and if someone can use this vulnerability in your environment. The file-based vulnerability feature works, but for most people, they do not take any action based on the results or block files because of file-based vulnerabilities.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Fortinet FortiSandbox puts suspicious files in quarantine, analyzes for virus risks, and lets them out of quarantine if it detects no risk."
"Performance is a valuable feature."
"Fortinet FortiSandbox is scalable."
"The most valuable feature was the EDR, endpoint detection and response."
"The analysis engine is a very valuable feature."
"The main benefit of Fortinet FortiSandbox is that it allows organizations to detect and prevent unknown threats from entering an infrastructure."
"The solution is easy to manage."
"It is a stable solution."
"I like the simplicity, the way it works out of the box. It's pretty easy to run and configure. The integration of the network devices with the ICAP server was easily done."
"OPSWAT is the best alternative."
 

Cons

"In the next release, I would like to see machine learning and anti-exploitation included."
"The licensing can be very confusing. It needs to be simplified."
"In general, maybe they are not updated to cover risks."
"It would be better if it had support for Mac and Linux."
"For additional features, maybe a form of execution pain files in a non-virtual environment because it has threats that identify when it is being run in a virtual machine."
"It would be better if we could integrate FortiSandbox with endpoint security solutions."
"Not practical for real-time web traffic analysis because users won't wait for the FortiSandbox to complete its analysis before accessing content"
"The delivery feature in my country is extremely bad."
"Some capabilities are lacking in reporting because we do not have full statistics that are easy for users to understand."
"The documentation is not well written, and I often need to talk with support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is affordable."
"The price of Fortinet FortiSandbox is not expensive."
"There is a license to use this solution."
"It is an expensive solution."
"The solution is not expensive at all."
"There are additional costs, which isn't included in the licensing fee."
"Fortinet FortiSandbox is a nominally priced product, so I would not say that it is a very cheap tool."
"The price of Fortinet FortiSandbox is expensive."
"We bought a three-year license, and that was pretty expensive. We agreed that it was really worth buying. It could be cheaper, but we understand that quality comes at a price."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions are best for your needs.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Government
10%
Computer Software Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Healthcare Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise13
Large Enterprise9
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Fortinet FortiSandbox?
The real-time analysis capability of FortiSandbox is beneficial for email analysis.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Fortinet FortiSandbox?
I think it's affordable. For the six to seven months of usage, the cost has been reasonable.
What needs improvement with Fortinet FortiSandbox?
We sometimes face a delay in email scanning due to not having multiple virtual machines. Improvements could be made in dynamic scanning, scanning all email components such as URLs and attachments, ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

FortiSandbox
OPSWAT MetaDefender, MetaDefender Core
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Lush, Barnabas Health, Options, Riverside Healthcare, Hillsbourough County Schools, Columbia Public Schools, Schiller AG
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Palo Alto Networks, Microsoft, Proofpoint and others in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP). Updated: December 2025.
881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.