Fortinet FortiClient Reviews

I use the tool to connect server to an ISP Data Center. 

The product's performance and pricing could be better. 

I am using the product for three to four months. 

The product's connections drop all the time. 

The tool is scalable. We have four users in the company for the product. 

The solution's initial setup is straightforward. The product's deployment tool 20-30 minutes to complete. 

The solution is not worth the investment. 

The product's licensing is yearly and expensive. 

I would rate the product a five out of ten. We plan to discard the product and use OpenVPN. I wouldn't recommend this product to other users. 

The primary use of Fortinet FortiClient is to protect endpoint devices against various types of cyber threats, such as viruses, trojans, spyware, and phishing attacks. It also helps to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive data and networks and can be used to control access to specific applications and websites.

In addition to endpoint protection, FortiClient can also be used to create secure VPN connections to enable remote access to company resources like Jira, code repositories, corporate Wiki, etc. 

It has a horrible performance. It is one of the most unstable VPNs I have ever used. 

Since the project was pushed to use, many employees complained about its instability. 

Sure, it has some advanced features, and it is not fair to evaluate it as a VPN only. Unfortunately, the company policies bring most of the resources through protection, and without the VPN, you will be simply blocked. 

Therefore, we are paying so much attention to it. With a slow or unstable internet connection, Fortinet becomes a nightmare. I personally numerous times printed tasks from Jira to PDF for other employees due to VPN issues.

The solution is easy to configure and manage.

It is designed to bring additional safety to the machine (it is hard to uninstall by an ordinal user, and it has an in-built web filter). However, implementation is far behind industry standards. 

For instance, the Web filter is a component that provides protection against web-based threats by blocking access to malicious or inappropriate websites. It might bring additional safety. However, in the real world, it constantly produces:

1. False Positives, which can result in legitimate websites being blocked. This can be frustrating for end-users and potentially impact their productivity.
2. FortiClient's Web filter may also over-block certain websites, even if they are not malicious or inappropriate. This could result in users being unable to access legitimate websites that are important for their work, causing delays or disruptions.

The solution needs network stability, especially when the internet connection is not stable. 

Forticlient should provide proper polling functionality to try to keep the session alive by all possible means. We have seen certain improvements over the past year. However, it is simply not enough to be treated as a good yet even acceptable tool to use. It is currently producing more issues than adds value.

The web filter quite often blocks random sites, including online dictionaries, governmental sites, etc. Review of the wrong block reports simply doesn't work. 

I've used the solution for around a year.

The solution is not stable enough.

The solution offers a weak performance.

After the merger, our project was forced to use Forticlient.

I know nothing about pricing.

We had no options to choose from.

If your employees might have a weak internet connection (for instance, mobile) think twice before choosing this configuration. If you decide to have FortiClient, never use the WebFilter component. Even Microsoft analog works better (if you really need it).

I mainly use FortiClient to connect my laptop to my data centers.

FortiClient's most valuable features are that it's easy to install and connect and has OTP on email IDs and two-factor authentication. 

FortiClient's encryption key could be stronger so that it's not broken too easily.

I've been using FortiClient for about three years.

FortiClient is stable.

The initial setup was easy.

I would rate FortiClient nine out of ten.

We primarily use it for the SSL VPN. That's what we use it for pretty much exclusively.

It works well with the Fortigate Firewall. It works like a VPN for our customers.

We haven't really integrated it with much else other than Fortigate. However, it does integrate well with other Fortinet solutions.

There is a lot of documentation available online.

It's reliable and stable. 

The solution can scale. 

I don't use it enough to be able to say what could be improved.

We've got one client where it was blocking the smartphones, and there's a way to set it up on Fortigate that's supposed to do that. However, it didn't work with them since they had a 2FA multi-factor. It was integrated with a Microsoft NPS server, and it does not work with that. It just blocks everything. Therefore, it doesn't integrate well. If they like to update the Fortigate so that you can VPN in, it’s fine. However, not from smartphones. That doesn't work at all. For somebody with the NPS server, it just screwed everything up. We're still trying to fix that.

I’ve used the solution for a couple of years.

The solution is stable. It’s reliable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn’t crash or freeze.

The product is scalable.

From the customer side, I don't know how many users there are per client. I don't know how many clients they all have. We've got a bunch of clients that use it. I don't know how many actual people are using it. They create groups, and people get added to groups, and the groups have access. We're not involved in all that. It's probably more like hundreds, or less than 100. Probably most of our clients would've less than 100 people.

I’ve dealt with support. It's okay. It depends on who you get on the other side. Some of them are very knowledgeable, and others seem to miss the mark. It can be hit and miss.

The solution does not require a lot of maintenance. You might just need an administrator to handle it. Occasionally when things stop working, we have them check what version they have as sometimes they need to upgrade it to the latest. However, in most cases, It's pretty maintenance-free.

We’re integrators. We can handle the setup.

They've got a free version that most of our clients have. I'm not sure of the costs beyond that. When you get into the licenses with the EMS and all that, I don't know how much it costs. I'm not on the sales side.

Without really having much in the way of experience with others, it's hard for me to compare it to others.

We’re integrators and resellers.

I don't have the full version, though, as we don't run EMS. However, one of our clients does.

There's a lot of good documentation. Just Google it. You can find what you need about the solution.

I’d rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use this to connect the data VPN from the remote office to the headquarters.

This solution is deployed on-prem.

We have 20-30 users, and we plan on increasing usage.

It works well and the performance is good.

The solution could be more secure. I would like to see more safety features. They could integrate access scanning from the VPN account. We have servers integrated with our firewall. When we changed the firewall, we needed to change the VPN.

I have been using this solution for a year.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

Installation is standard. You can do the installation in-house. Deployment takes about five minutes.

You need a technical team of two or three engineers for installation.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

I would recommend this solution for people who want to start using it.

This solution allows developers and programmers to connect endpoint users with security.

This solution is very stable.

I would like for the next release to be more user-friendly for users to do not have as much of a technical background.

I have been using FortiClient for two years.

This solution is stable, I have not had any problems with it.

This solution is scalable, we currently have fifty eight users.

FortiClient was very easy to install and took about five minutes in total.

We primarily use Fortinet FortiClient for their VPN, which provides us with a secure connection and allows people to work from home.

The ability to reroute traffic from the user, connecting you to the internet rather than passing through our network area, is very useful. It also reduces the amount of traffic that we use here. When they connect to the internet, they go directly there.

It would be extremely useful to have an automatic updating feature.

I have been using Fortinet FortiClient for two years.

We are using version 6.4.

Fortinet FortiClient is very stable.

We are not a large company which made it easy install to everyone. It was easy to scale. 

I have not contacted technical support, and I do not believe there has ever been a discussion about technical support.

The initial setup is straightforward. it was quite simple.

It's a good online solution.

We are using it less now that we're almost back in the office. I don't think there was anything we missed while using it.

It's a very good product, I would rate Fortinet FortiClient a nine out of ten.

I'm a system integrator. We're primarily a Cisco shop, but we've been diversifying in recent years.

What I like most about FortiClient is that it's easy to use. The way it displays information is very straightforward. 

I'd like the ability to specify when EMS is controlling the client and when it's not because you would have a lot more options were it not for the client. As it stands, you need to edit the XML file on EMS to get those options. 

I also think Fortinet could improve the VPN. It's good, but Cisco AnyConnect is a bit better. Fortinet could add split tunneling for the routes, like AnyConnect. Currently, you have to go into the command prompt and then print the route. So someone who's not that knowledgeable of the product will not know how to do it. Fortinet could maybe include some more next-gen AV stuff, but I think that's going to be integrated into the new packages we've got. 

I've been using FortiClient for more than a year now.

I don't think FortiClient is bad, but it's very buggy. We ran into some issues with the EMS, which amounted to more than 10 cases last year. It would bug out while auto-upgrading on this specific version. So, that would be an obvious thing. And bug tracking is bad. FortiClient gives you an internal message that says the bug has been reported, but I cannot find it anywhere online. 

Tech support is one of FortiClient's worst areas. Fortinet's firewall support was much faster and better, I would say. Support for FortiClient isn't bad per se, but it takes you a long time for your ticket to get answered and escalated to a higher level of support, like an actual engineer. Unfortunately, FortiClient's support is based on the West Coast of the United States, so that means that I'm going to get a ticket reply at maybe 4:00 a.m. and then have to wait another day.

Setting up Fortinet was quite easy. I would say it took around two hours.

FortiClient is much cheaper than endpoint protection systems made by Cisco and other companies. Pricing is especially important in Bosnia. We were deploying Cisco M, but not too many companies can afford that.

I would give it eight out of 10 with the VPN. Without the VPN, I would maybe rate it a seven. One of the main selling points is that it integrates all that stuff together.