Fortinet FortiADC Reviews

Our clients are using Fortinet FortiADC primarily for load balancing, which serves as the application server load balancer. We have worked with one or two cases of Fortinet FortiADC. For application load balancer solutions, we prefer either A10, which is a leader product present in Gartner leader and Forrester leader, or Radware. We worked with a customer who was in the Fortinet environment, so we suggested Fortinet FortiADC, which helps integrate with FortiWeb, a WAF solution.

For integration purposes, we implemented Fortinet FortiADC, and they had around four applications and 20 servers. We were able to do the load balancing based on the round robin method in that ADC, which was the use case objective of having the ADC solution. It was placed behind the WAF solution, so SSL offloading and transitions were taken care of in the SLB part, specifically Fortinet FortiADC.

Regarding SSL offloading, we had the same use case since they need the certificate for external communications, but for internal communications, they had a separate certificate. We just offloaded the SSL in WAF, and we do the SSL transition in the Fortinet FortiADC part.

When speaking about load balancing, this refers to GSLB, which stands for Global Server Load Balancing. The use case was to balance the loads in a hospital environment with one main application and other side applications supporting doctors, the database for their medical equipment, and related systems. The main application was an online consulting application. The task of Fortinet FortiADC was to load balance the number of hits based on the round robin algorithm and manage the balances between the four or five servers allocated to the application.

In terms of analytics and reporting capability, when integrated, we integrated with FortiAnalyzer. As a standalone solution, it doesn't show much impact, but when integrated with FortiAnalyzer, it has much more significance.

Some customers need custom management for handling their applications across the servers. Instead of having a predefined solution, if we had space for custom-based algorithms to load balance the traffic, it would be better. We have faced such cases with A10, where we can leverage many custom scripts and do much more. Even though A10 primarily focuses on SMBs, they have also ventured into the enterprise market. Fortinet has been a pioneer for enterprise solutions, such as firewalls, SASE, ZTNA, and SD-WAN solutions, and they are in a leader quadrant. Therefore, they should have more options.

From a pricing perspective, it is expensive.

Fortinet FortiADC has been a stable product until now; however, lately we are facing some small issues. It cannot be classified as unstable since they have good support. Overall, it has been good; in the past it was very good, and now it is still performing well.

Even though it is on-premise, there might be some limitations with scalability. Fortinet FortiADC has both virtual and physical appliance options. For those opting for a SaaS or cloud solution, there is scalability and flexibility. Additionally, FortiGSLB cloud integrations provide maximum service availability and some flexible licensing options. Apart from the physical on-premise model, everything else regarding scalability and functionality is excellent.

Technical support from Fortinet is satisfactory. It varies depending on the engineer assigned; in most cases, we resolve issues on the first attempt. There have been one or two rare instances where they fail to provide complete support, but it's not solely their fault; overall, the support is good.

On a scale from one to ten, the support deserves an eight.

Positive

When comparing Fortinet to other competitors such as SentinelOne, Trend Micro, and Trellix, Fortinet provides a comprehensive platform that goes beyond just solutions; it creates an end-to-end security platform. You can have mail security, web security, and firewall perimeter security. In contrast, Trellix and Trend Micro mostly focus on endpoint security levels and occasionally offer secure web gateway or mail security solutions. Rarely do they cover as much as Fortinet. SentinelOne focuses heavily on the attacking path regarding endpoint security and identity security. Their roadmap is extending to data DLP, data security, and cloud security. They have begun working on cloud security and their product is promising. Ultimately, Fortinet constructs every solution needed for each defense layer, making it comparatively better than Trellix, Trend Micro, or SentinelOne.

The installation of Fortinet FortiADC rates around six or seven out of ten in terms of difficulty.

Our clients typically have the solution on-premise. I would rate Fortinet FortiADC a seven out of ten overall as a product.

We are implementing FortiFirewall, FortiAnalyzer, and we have implemented one ADC, Fortinet FortiADC. Those are the products we are implementing.

We are a multiple vendor company. We do Sophos and Palo Alto. Fortinet is our best-selling product, actually.

Palo Alto is not selling much in Sri Lanka. Mostly Sophos and FortiGate are sold. Sophos gets most customers, as they request a Sophos firewall.

Fortinet FortiADC is a good product. We implemented a Fortinet FortiADC cluster, and we use application load balancing. The implementation process is straightforward, and cluster implementation is also very easy. It is a good product.

We are doing the load balancing part mainly. It is very easy because we configure normally our two application servers and one virtual IP, and then it works without any errors.

I did not explore the advanced features as I only performed load balancing in the application and cluster implementation.

I need to study Fortinet FortiADC more.

Regarding Fortinet FortiADC reporting, our customer has not requested the reporting part from us, and I have not considered that. There appears to be an advanced reporting part that I am not aware of.

The advanced analytics part was not requested from us. The only thing customers expected was load balancing.

Four years.

The implementation was very easy. We have two applications in two ESXi hosts that I integrated into our ADC, and I created one virtual IP in the virtual server pool. The load balancing happened without any error. It was very easy.

Gateway Load Balancing is something we have considered.

Fortinet technical support is very good, and they provide us with better support.

The response time is good, and the support quality is also good.

Local support is mostly not available to us. If we get stuck in some situation, we open global support.

Positive

We previously used F5, which is well-known in Sri Lanka.

Currently, our company is not providing F5.

The setup process was straightforward.

We are a partner.

The WAF function implementation would be better if we could do it very easily and in a user-friendly way.

Pricing is not considered on our side since we are the implementation team. Our pre-sales team considers the pricing and all the details.

We did not implement SSL Offloading, as we use the HTTP side. In the future, the customer has an idea to implement the HTTPS side, and I will need to follow that HTTPS offloading as well in the near future.

The WAF function can be enabled in Fortinet FortiADC. It would be better if we could implement that very easily.

The WAF function is not well-known among our customers.

I only performed the load balancing part and did not go into a deep implementation. Based on my knowledge, I rate Fortinet FortiADC an eight out of ten.

The primary use case involves load balancing, which can be integrated with various platforms such as FortiGate and FortiMail. Administrators choose FortiADC as a load-balancing platform due to its integration capabilities with end-user technologies. 

It supports the creation of virtual IPs and configuration of server nodes, applying algorithms like route roaming, which depends on the administrator's choice.

FortiADC provides load-balancing capabilities needed for integration with other Fortinet platforms. It allows for the creation of virtual IPs and applying various algorithms for traffic management. 

Although it offers fewer algorithms than competing platforms like F5, its capability to manage load balancing makes it valuable. The security features depend on the environment, relying on firewalls like FortiGate.

When the FortiADC is part of a platform with components like FortiManager and FortiGate, automation and pushing configuration are very inconvenient. The limitation of managing all components and the differing versions pose challenges. Migration to the cloud could solve these limitations, allowing for easier upgrades.

The solution has been used for just one year.

The platform is very stable. The support system is reliable when issues like automation or configuration arise.

It is scalable for some versions, however, as components reach their end of support, upgrades are necessary to maintain scalability.

Customer service is excellent. The support team is knowledgeable and efficiently assists with automation and configuration problems. They provide timely responses and thorough explanations for user queries.

Positive

A comparison was made with F5's local traffic management. Although F5 has more algorithms, FortiADC follows similar load balancing procedures. The platform's choice seems influenced by specialization in security across different devices.

The process seems to be straightforward if one has basic skills and understands the prerequisites in the support database.

F5's LTM was evaluated, which offers more specialized traffic management capabilities compared to FortiADC's diverse devices for different functionalities.

I rate Fortinet FortiADC an eight. While it effectively integrates load balancing within the Fortinet ecosystem, F5 is rated higher due to its specific capabilities in traffic management. However, FortiADC aligns with Fortinet's specialization in security.

Mostly, I use FortiADC for web applications. For example, we have multiple trading websites where we need to load payments for many clients accessing from outside.

I use server load balancing and employ layer seven features, which provide more granular traffic shaping and detailed logs. 

Additionally, I use load balancing technology like Round Robin or low weight to maintain session-based connections. This ensures that clients can connect to their applications without interruption. In contrast, using standalone solutions can lead to network conditions that disrupt user connectivity and necessitate additional components before deploying FortiADC. 

Primarily, I use this setup for trading platforms.

I will queue all the details clearly on the ticket, including the diagram, log files, and everything else. Once a case is assigned, they ask the same questions again without checking the submitted details. Instead of getting notifications, I start sharing articles I already know, which are supposed to fix issues and help in troubleshooting. Still, I often have to contact FortiADC support again. 

After a week, once my remote system is assigned, their support is very good. However, if I need design help, they do not assist; they say it is a design issue they cannot support, and I must approach the system integrator. For troubleshooting, they are very effective once connected to remote support.

I have used it for almost three years, deploying it for a few clients.

The service is helpful yet not excellent. It is good, just not very good.

Negative

If I consider traffic shaping and latency, FortiADC does not add any more latency within our internal network. Monitoring the application is very helpful. The alert system is efficient, sending alerts within a fraction of a second if any power issues arise. 

In comparison, Kemp support is not at the same level. If any hardware fails, Fortinet ensures a next business day delivery, whereas Kemp often asks many questions and does not support as effectively. I have encountered many issues with Kemp compared to FortiADC.

This solution is quite expensive compared to Kemp.

Kemp load balancing is an alternative, however, customers still prefer FortiADC.

I would rate FortiADC eight out of ten. I did not explore FortiADC's link balancing features; my focus has been primarily on server wellbeing, not on link balancing. This is a feature I need to explore.

Our company uses the solution for various clients.

For one customer, we use the solution for global load balancing, GSLB, and sending DNS requests to the primary DNS.

For another customer, we use the solution as the ADC for data centers to protect all websites and use Layer 7 to provide DDos protection and load balancing for web traffic. 

For a third customer, we use the solution as a GSLB but rented a data center rack to deploy as a virtual machine with all DNS requests going to the cloud and then to the customer. 

Our company provides WAF and complicated applications to customers. If we do not use the solution, we have issues because it protects the web server from SQL injections, XSS, DDoS, and HTTP attacks. Competitors such as Palo Alto, Check Point, and even FortiGate cannot provide a WAF. 

Link load balancing also helps us to reduce our linked and internal traffic. 

The solution provides high-level services such as availability, redundancy, and load balancing between servers. 

Routing protocols are better than those in FortiWeb.

For example, CNN has one website but a lot of web traffic so we need more than one server for high availability and load sharing. The solution allows for load sharing across multiple servers or even multiple data centers where they run as active/active or active/passive. If we lose the primary data center due to natural disaster or a high global load, we can manipulate DNS traffic to the secondary data center.

The solution's WAF needs an upgrade because it is not as good as FortiWeb, VMware, F5, or Imperva. 

The solution should be migrated to a software-defined network like Imperva and VMware. 

I have been using the solution for ten years. 

The solution is stable. We use version 6.2.4 to provide better stability than the newer versions which have more bugs.  

The scalability is limited to 200 gigabit throughput on the best version of the solution which is the 5000F series. 

We can use the solution as an HA in active/active mode which allows us to increase throughput by 50%. 

For one customer, we used the 1200F series with a 40 gigabit throughput and usage was less than 70% with one million users. 

I have not used technical support for the solution but have used it for other Fortinet products. 

Colleagues work for the company so I can get quick solutions for issues. 

For one particular issue, technical support was not able to resolve our issue so they sent us a new version of the solution and that solved the problem. 

The initial setup and configuration are very easy because the solution includes a simple OS. Initial configuration takes about ten minutes for simple environments. 

It is important to assess the environment and decide what services, servers, and web applications are needed. 

The solution can be configured in router mode or one-arm mode which uses source NAT as destination NAT to send traffic to the firewall. One-arm mode is more complex and requires discussions with our engineers. 

For example, you have a website with Node.js for your programming language, Amazon S3 for your CDN, NGINX for your web server, and you use both React and reCAPTCHA. Our team meets with your developer to learn your website and OS through a multi-step process and then we configure the solution to protect everything. 

Depending on the complexity of the project, we implement the solution ourselves or sometimes we rely on third-party teams to assist us. 

The solution is less expensive than F5 or Imperva and is the most reasonably priced option available. 

We use different solutions based on a customer's needs and budget. 

Imperva is the best solution, F5 is the best for on-premises, and we also like Magic Quadrant. 

VMware has all the features of FortiADC such as GSLB, load balancer, and WAF. It can be used for your data center or as a software-defined network with a single point of management that does not have 200 gigabit limitations. 

It is important to know your network and load share needs before deciding on a solution. This assessment will help you decide if a certain model of the solution will meet your needs or if you should look at another product such as F5, Imperva, or VMware. 

I currently use version 6.2.4 of the solution because we will not update to 7.0 or 7.1 until they are in the market for a year and all bugs have been worked out. 

Fortinet equipment can have bugs and some exist in the version we use but the there are more bugs in the newer versions. 

I rate the solution a six out of ten. 

We are expanding our internal network with more virtual servers, and each needs to be defined on the Fortinet gateway. The FortiADC facilitates communication for servers meant for public access and supports load balancing. My main tasks involve defining new servers and importing SSL certificates.

Initially, I was intimidated by FortiADC. That said, it has a good user manual, allowing management even with basic knowledge. It helps with defining server load balancing tasks and managing SSL certificates, ensuring the communication flow through the Fortinet gateway.

Though FortiADC is useful, I'd appreciate more user-friendly features and in-depth insights into network activity, like detailed logs and AI-driven feedback for optimization. While there's logging, I'm cautious about large log sizes.

We've been using FortiADC for about five or six years.

FortiADC is very stable. We don't face issues or need to worry about unexpected shutdowns or bugs. Its reliability benefits our operations significantly.

I rate the scalability of FortiADC as a seven or eight. While it's fairly adaptable, feedback on whether our setup is optimized would be beneficial.

We communicate with the technical support team from the company that sold us FortiADC. They have been helpful, with the representative demonstrating strong instincts in problem-solving.

Positive

We previously used Coyote Equalizer, which became outdated. We needed to implement TLS 1.2, but it only supported TLS 1.0. Fortinet acquired Coyote, leading us to choose FortiADC.

The initial setup and deployment were not done by me. The company that sold it did the initial setup.

As a government organization, reliability and security are crucial. FortiADC is an essential investment, providing these vital elements.

I'm unsure about pricing comparisons, but it seems affordable. Six out of ten might reflect its cost-effectiveness.

It's likely no other vendors were evaluated, as Fortinet acquired Coyote, so the transition to FortiADC made sense.

Find a reliable partner for technical support to ensure peace of mind. Without proper support, addressing problems can be challenging. I rate FortiADC a nine out of ten.

I use Fortinet ADC solution for SSL offloading, certificate management, and load balancing.

The solution enhances performance by efficiently balancing the load across multiple backend servers. It ensures client experiences remain unaffected even if a server starts or encounters issues. Additionally, it manages SSL offloading, relieving our servers from handling certificates.

One of the product's areas of improvement includes reducing the number of components requiring additional licenses, such as antivirus and IDS, which are already covered by our firewall. These additional licenses are redundant for our needs.

The platform has been very stable for the past five years, requiring no maintenance from anyone. There have been no hardware or software issues.

The solution supports numerous virtual servers, approximately a hundred.

I have relied on documentation and online resources for troubleshooting. Our support license is valid for two more years.

Before implementing Fortinet ADC, we used an application delivery system from a company acquired by Broadcom. Due to its discontinuation, we could not upgrade this system, preventing firmware updates necessary for new certificates.

The previous solution required extensive command-line configuration, while the Fortinet ADC offers a more user-friendly web interface with various configuration options, simplifying the setup process.

I carefully reviewed the documentation and configured the product, avoiding default settings. While the setup was complex, thorough preparation facilitated a smooth deployment. It took approximately a year to complete it.

The return on investment is moderate.

Our basic license excludes features such as antivirus and IDS. Due to license limitations, some functionalities are not configured.

I evaluated another platform but found it a single-device system lacking fault tolerance. It was also more expensive and did not perform as effectively, so I chose Fortinet ADC.

The product's advanced capability improves network efficiency and performance by concurrently managing thousands of client connections and optimizing overall network traffic.

I recommend it to others and rate it a seven out of ten. It performs very well for the functions it provides.

We use Fortinet FortiADC for controlling applications by Microsoft and Google. We use the solution to block content that must be blocked and allow content that can be allowed.

Fortinet FortiADC is a good product because each and every piece of content is monitored by it. I can perfectly take control of the service provided to the end user. The solution's policy also works on the group level and individual level.

Fortinet FortiADC is easy to operate and has single-handed control.

Fortinet's fixed application version has very good policies. Some features have been reduced in the new version of Fortinet FortiADC. Whenever Fortinet updates its application version, it should provide the same features.

For example, I was using MAC-based control for end users. Six months back, I updated the version of Fortinet OS. The MAC-based control on the new version was CLI-based, which is difficult to manage. I wanted the MAC-based control to be GUI-based.

Fortinet FortiADC should include an advanced-level SD-WAN.

I have been using Fortinet FortiADC since 2014.

Fortinet FortiADC is a stable solution.

Fortinet FortiADC is a scalable solution. More than 100 users are using the solution in our organization.

Fortinet FortiADC’s technical support is good.

Positive

It takes two to three hours to deploy Fortinet FortiADC.

The solution's pricing is an issue and should be improved. We have a yearly subscription for Fortinet FortiADC.

One person is required for the maintenance of Fortinet FortiADC. The solution is deployed on-cloud in our organization.

Overall, I rate Fortinet FortiADC ten out of ten.

The tool offers Web Application Firewall to protect against threats such as what is outlined in the OWASP Top 10 and robust load-balancing functionality with in depth health monitoring of application availability.

The FortiADC provides greater insight into the root cause of problems. Often application issues are blamed on the network team first - by having the app servers behind the FortiADC we get detailed statistics on app performance and availability helping narrow down the root cause of problems far quicker. FortiADC has also enabled horizontal scaling of applications allowing the organization to better respond to increased demand for an app at short notice.

I like the load-balancing components because they are very straightforward. The interface is easy to get around and follows a very logical pattern and the API's are very easy to follow. The basic OWASP protections it offers in the web application firewall are also useful.

The tool does what it says on the box. Setting up priority groups and using health monitors is easy. 

We can do patches offline to application servers without causing outages that would affect the customer. The web application firewall features, especially those related to the OWASP Top Ten, provide easily integrated and automated protections. This helps with legislative compliance for our Apps and for compliance with the PCI security standards.
This allows more flexibility in patching the back end applications and it offers visibility into the requests being made to the applications - you can't protect what you can't see.

The solution needs to better integrate sFlow, providing more of this information in the dashboard. The sFlow data would help provide significantly more context when reviewing app performance.

I have been working with the product for 18 months.

I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten. Over the past 18 months of operation we haven't had a single issue.

I rate Fortinet FortiADC's scalability a ten out of ten. It's capable of significant throughput and Fortinet's ASICs mean that most functions can happen at line speed which is a huge advantage compared to other competitors. We have three enterprise customers currently utilizing the solution. 

I haven't contacted the solution's support yet. 

F5 BIG-IP, and we moved as FortiADC was a tenth of the cost.

I rate Fortinet FortiADC's deployment a ten out of ten. It takes a couple of hours to complete, and it's usually deployed in a network that's already set up for application delivery. The interface is very similar to what you would see on a FortiGate firewall, and is very intuitive. Once you have set up basic networking, setting up your first VIP takes a matter of minutes - the majority of the rest of your setup time is testing the application and fail over to ensure that the apps teams are happy.

Fortinet FortiADC's pricing is incredibly competitive and a fraction of what its competitors charge. The licensing structure is straight forward and without any nasty surprises.

We also evaluated Kemp load balancers.

You should attempt a trial before making the decision. Your reseller should be able to obtain a trial license for a VM without too much trouble.

We use the product to manage load balancing and HTTP traffic. 

I am impressed with the product's load-balancing feature. 

The solution should improve finding false positives and false negatives. There are a lot of false positives. 

The product's setup is straightforward. The WAF took more time because we had to find a configuration that avoided a lot of false positives. We required only two people to handle the tool's deployment. 

I would rate the product a seven out of ten.