Fortinet FortiGate-VM Reviews

Our primary requirement is security. We are using it as part of our enterprise deployment with Fortinet. Currently, we are doing the firewalls using these appliances.

We are a services company that provides IT solutions for many other customers. As an IT service provider, we have different requirements from different customers and support them.

There is room for improvement in the pricing model. The pricing is expensive, but pricing should be competitive, and it should be unit-based pricing.

We have a decade of experience with Fortinet FortiGate-VM. We have different versions.

The stability is good. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

I rate scalability a ten out of ten because its mesh architecture allows consistent policies. Additionally, we can keep adding points and integrate them into the same dish, making it easy to scale up as needed.

The customer service and support team is of high quality. The reason is that we are a preferred partner and vendor for Fortinet. So, they are available whenever we call them, and we have no problems. We have a specialized team that is deployed only for our organization.

I would rate the initial setup a nine out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy. You need to deploy it on a virtual appliance. Deploying the appliance itself is usually straightforward, but designing the architecture and arranging the solution can be challenging for many customers.

We deploy it on both on-prem and cloud, depending on the customer's preference. Our architecture is a mesh architecture. It depends on the customer's requirements. We choose the type of appliances and the capacity required to run. For instance, for a customer with a thousand workloads utilizing a Fortinet gateway, we would select the physical appliances that best suit their needs for on-prem deployment.

Conversely, we would use a mesh configuration with consistent policies across cloud engines for a data interface in the cloud. So, we've used both ways. We use a virtual version on-premises, physical appliances on-premises, and virtual appliances inside the cloud.

The whole deployment takes around four weeks to three months, depending on the architecture. It is quite a broad process, but if I summarize, we typically start with a high-level solution design and then move into the low-level details, such as port configuration and traffic flow. Finally, we move on to the actual deployment phase.

I would rate it a five, where one is low, and ten is high. We usually do monthly licensing costs as we don't invest capital and do more OpEx-based pricing.

My advice is if you have to go with the complete stack, go with the complete stack, not the replacement-only product. Don't look at it as a replacement. Choose a platform.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. The reason is that I have a next-generation firewall. Fortinet FortiGate-VM provides various deployment options, such as physical or virtual devices, and it can be easily integrated with public clouds. Additionally, I can integrate it with other Fortinet products like network access control or zero trust network access in a single step, which is very convenient. Their security stack portfolio works well with my hybrid mesh firewall, and I am satisfied with its integration capabilities.

We have had a very good experience with Fortinet FortiGate-VM. They are usually the first choice for us when it comes to designing. We have certain products for certain purposes, and this one is our preferred choice for firewall purposes.

Moreover, They have hardware appliances that can be deployed on-premise, virtual appliances deployed on the cloud, and a mesh that can form a cluster. It's very good.

We use Fortinet FortiGate-VM for managing inbound and outbound internet traffic through our environment. Sometimes, we also use it for managing the site's internet outbound and routing. We also use it for IPSec on Azure. We also have an on-premises environment, and we're using it for IPSec on that environment. 

All the routing happens through it because we're swinging all the traffic on the Azure side through a firewall which is basically the gateway. It acts as the gateway and manages outbound traffic in that environment. We have also set up the SSL VPN for users. We do have FortiGate on-premise, and we set up the SSL VPN connection for users.

It made the routing of traffic seamless and it helped us with SD-WAN as well as load balancing.

I like the visibility and monitoring features because they're easy to use to monitor traffic. Features like geo-blocking and more have AI, and we're currently using all of it. But for now, we're only using geo-blocking, and we're able to block traffic from different countries. I also like that it's highly responsive. VM04 is also very powerful.

It would be better if it could provide you with options before completely blocking anything through the web filter. If you are doing a deep SSL inspection on the site if it says it's expired, it doesn't give you the option to continue at your own risk. I can't say that it's bad, but SSL internally isn't really a requirement. However, its security features can help. Right now, we have people going out and spending on purchasing the SSL certificates for internal sites. 

I have been using this solution for three years.

Fortinet FortiGate-VM is a stable and very reliable solution.

Fortinet FortiGate-VM is a scalable solution. It's very powerful, and I've never seen that machine running out of resources. It always worked.

Tech support is okay, but we do a lot of management by ourselves. We have a third party that we use when we do implementations, and I haven't contacted Fortinet even though I have access to it. The local support that we use costs much less. 

I still remember using Check Point, and it took a long time to apply a policy. To install the policy, you had to wait for ten to 20 minutes or even 30 minutes. Fortinet FortiGate-VM instantly applies the policy on the FortiGate itself.

The initial setup was difficult because we were all new when it came to the Azure environment. It was a little difficult to create space and understand that you have to have more than one interface. But once you get used to it. It's pretty straightforward.

It's straightforward if you have all that is required when you're clearing your traffic. If you're clearing your traffic already into your internal length to communicate with the firewall range, and you have information and understand it before the implementation, it will be very seamless. It will be stress-free when you understand the environment where you're going to implement it.

Our license is yearly, but we're thinking of going monthly. I think it's somewhere around 100,000 for VM04. Nowadays, everyone wants to be a hacker, so we believe in security. That's why we also have third-party people that we involve to make sure that we're secure. 

I don't think the costs are too bad. You still want to get advice from people who worked in security for many years, so you add a third party. The third party also said they would give their share like 100K, or 200K or something like that, so I don't think it's too expensive for security. I think it just adds more trust. 

We have been using Check Point Firewall so it was easy to identity the difference.

I will recommend the solution. If it's a first-time deployment in Azure, they need to understand a couple of things, like the interfaces we need to create. The good thing about FortiGate is that they don't hide how their devices work. You can go to their website and get every instruction that you need at any time. It's straightforward and even has pictures showing you what you should expect. I've done a few changes for the first time, and I didn't have to stress. But you must know the infrastructure well.

On a scale from one to ten, I would five Fortinet FortiGate-VM a ten.

The use case was a bit more complex than other clients, however, the typical usage was for VPNs for end-users to get into the internal network. For a mid-size company, that's a pretty much typical use. 

The only thing out of the ordinary would be the SIEM for all the network information, all the metadata, that is cloud-based. We had to create a tunnel to it so that the collector, being in the cloud, would be able to access the internal information.

It performs the functions it needs to perform and it's been reliable. It didn't need to be modified and we didn't have problems where things would just crop up. After months configured it's been rock solid, which is good. That's why I haven't touched it in a year and a half.

I liked its general capabilities.

Its cloud management is very good.

I did like the ability to back up the configuration into the cloud, as opposed to having to store the configurations or just downloading them, the backups, to local devices.  When you want to back up the configuration you can download it as a local file and save it to the cloud.   

That flexibility was very useful. 

The product had a fairly good user interface. It was well thought out and the controls seem to be in a logical hierarchy. I was able to find stuff without having to configure things. There was just a logical breakdown of how to find things.

There were a few cases where I had to use the command line interface on it. Now they do have the ability to pop up a command line, which is nice, however, the fact that you can't do everything within the GUI is probably a problem. There's a thing I have for most products that have started out in the command line and have added GUI, and the GUI is always somewhat behind in capability.

If you have a product you should be able to control the entire product through your user interface. You shouldn't have to drop back into backend command line commands in order to tweak something. There's a couple of cases where we had to do that when we were trying to set up one of the tunnels in particular. We were talking to Check Point or some other company. You've got two different manufacturers with a sort of standard for tunneling with all kinds of encryption methods and stuff like that. You have all these options, and, in order to get the right one, we couldn't discern it from the logs that we were viewing with the user interface. We had to drop down to the command line in order to do that. I would have thought that there should be enough information options made visible in what you can just do from the user interface.

I have been dealing with the solution for three years or so. However, the last time I used it was within the last 12 months or so. The company was restructuring their office due to COVID, and so we had to go in and make changes and set up different connections, That's the last time I was actually in it.

The stability is rock solid. It's a very good solution. I haven't had to touch it for a year. The last thing I did was a firmware upgrade. That was a year ago, and they haven't requested any more work on that now. It's still operational and solid. There have been no complaints really on it.

The product was sized for what the client was doing. I can't really say one way, or the other, whether it's more or less scalable than other solutions. I know we could do things to it - that we didn't do - to increase its capability. However, it didn't need to be done and they didn't have the budget for adding anything to it. It's hard to say. I can't really speak to the scalability of it.

Technical support has been great. They really helped us when we had issues with some early problems during setup.

It ties to the device, so it's pretty easy to see whether or not you have support, however, it was not difficult to get in touch with them. You get someone with knowledge right away. You don't have to go through a filter of people asking you "Is it plugged in?"

I'm actually reselling a managed service of SonicWall. It's not completely hands-on. Now all I do is get reports from it and I can look at the dashboard, however, I don't actually have to configure it.

I've also resold Barracuda.

The initial setup was straightforward. It got complex when we started adding in requirements for tunneling et cetera. The implementation involved VPNs and the general configuration of the firewall. Then they added in these other requirements that it needed to connect to AWS. First, it was to their remote hosted environment. Then, subsequently, to the AWS environment as well. It grew over time. Over the course of a year, we spent a lot of time on it.

I'd rate the initial setup experience at a four out of five. Most of the stuff went pretty well. We had one issue and we had to drop down into it. However, their support was very good. We were able to contact support, and they were able to stay online and walk us through that problem, so without any issues. They didn't balk at it. We didn't have to beg them to help us. Some support you get in there and have to say, "I'm sorry, yes I've done all those things. Get me to the next level."

They had good quality support.

In terms of deployment, it was there when I got there. They had purchased it out of the box and they hadn't configured it. For six months it just sat there. We had it up and running within a month of me getting there. Then over time, we added more and more requirements to it. It didn't take very long to figure out what they wanted to do with it and get it set up. The actual configuration was very quick. It was just the planning beforehand that took time.

Besides myself, there were about four other people in the IT department working on the product. However, really, only one person is responsible for the gateways.

The ROI that they were looking for was an improvement in security for the whole company. It was one of those evolving things, that as new security deployments come up some of them get implemented within the firewall and others are implemented structurally or in other ways. It was able to help them meet their security goals. That was probably the biggest value that they were looking for. It also did not impede their normal operating procedure.

The licensing costs are in line with everyone else. It all seems expensive when you're talking about firewalls, however, they're all the same. It's likely in the middle of the pack.

There are costs involved with FortiTokens. Everyone has different ways of controlling VPN access, however, with the FortiTokens you get a certain amount with the device, and then you have to buy more as you add them on. They're not costly.

However, it's something you have to buy in batches, so if you've got 40 people you're going to buy a bunch of FortiTokens, and each token is an encryption key so that you can have your little app that's multifactor. They charge for that. Everyone else, in terms of competition, charges for that too.

I can't speak to if the client evaluated another solution prior to choosing this.

I primarily work as a consultant. 

The solution's deployment was on-premises, however, there were VPNs set up for remote access, VPNs set up for site-to-site, and VPNs set up for cloud-based SIEM.

As with any solution, you need to size it. You need to plan what you're going to do and what your expectations are with it before you choose the pure model. After that, proper planning is needed before you try to deploy it so you don't have to back stuff out.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Internally, I've been using this solution to front our servers.

I found the Antivirus and Anti-spam features most valuable in this solution. I'm happy with FortiGate-VM because it's good for our servers. It stopped many attacks, including spam, over our networks.

It's been a year since I started using FortiGate-VM.

I find this solution really stable.

The scalability of this solution is an eight or a nine to me. It's good.

I don't have experience with Fortinet's technical support. When I face any problem or issue, I call the company that came here to implement the device.

I hired a consultant to implement the solution. I had a good experience. It was good for my work and my networks.

FortiGate-VM is more expensive than Sophos. We have two appliances: a main appliance, then a backup, e.g. FortiGate-VM, and this make it so expensive, even more than the costs from Sophos.

We pay the standard three-year licensing fees.

I evaluated Sophos.

I spent many years using Cyber and Sophos. Mainly, I use Sophos, while I use FortiGate-VM in the network background.

I see that Fortinet is a big company. I can't compare the Sophos and Fortinet solutions I'm using, because I'm using Sophos at the front, and behind Sophos, I'm using FortiGate-VM, so I can't give a good comparison or opinion. I've only used FortiGate-VM for one year.

It took nearly one month to complete the FortiGate-VM deployment because the decision came from upper management.

No other users use FortiGate-VM in our organization, because it's a device or appliance that only stands in front of our servers.

We don't have a need for maintenance yet. We've only been using it for one year and it currently needs no maintenance.

I don't know if our organization has plans to increase the usage of FortiGate-VM because this decision will come from upper management.

I'm a good observer and I'm still learning some feature metrics of this solution.

What I'd like to advice people looking into implementing FortiGate-VM is to study the FAQs of other users. You should know the tricks and what exactly is needed in this appliance. This is a very good appliance, but I have less experience with it compared to Sophos which I've used for many years.

I'm rating FortiGate-VM an eight out of ten.

Maybe others rate the vendor a 10 out of 10, but I'm sticking with eight.

The solution is primarily used for security. When a company has a hybrid solution and the client is looking for a next-generation firewall with all the bells and whistles inside, we recommend FortiGate.

The intrusion prevention systems are great.  

The anti-spam capabilities are really great.

The solution has a lot of very useful security features. 

The solution is stable.

The scalability potential is there.

The previous version, which was 7.1 or 7.2, was a little bit easier to use. It's kind of a little bit tricky to find the options from the firewall configurations now, in the latest version. Previously, it was easier to deal with. The whole dashboard that you get can be improved. They could organize the whole dashboard a bit more to put stuff under each other in a way that makes sense and makes everything easy to reach.

The costs could be lowered.

I've used the solution for a while. I've used it over the last 12 months.

We have found the stability to be good. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The product is scalable. It is a little bit expensive on Azure when you use it on the cloud, however. If a company plans to expand it, they need to keep this in mind. However, even those on-premises can be highly scalable. 

The initial setup needs to be handled by a person knowledgeable in Fortinet products. 

We are implementors. We can handle the setup process for our clients.

The product does have the capabilities of providing an ROI to companies. 

The product could be cheaper. When a company scales it, it can get pricey.

The pricing, in fact, is the one aspect that could potentially make clients change their minds. In terms of features, it has almost everything - whatever someone would need. However, the price sometimes is the obstacle. It could force the client to go with a cheaper product. Especially on the cloud, a solution such as this can get costly as you are paying for the cloud stuff on top of the license, and you have to pay per hour.

We are implementors. 

We have both virtual and physical servers.

I would advise new users first to ensure they have strong knowledge before attempting an implementation. It has everything a company might need and it is scalable. However, the person doing the implementation itself needs to be skilled. There might be a lot of things going on during implementation that need to be dealt with properly.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

We are using FortiGate-VM for the protection of our internal network and also for VPN services. Right now, there are about 200 end users in our main office and in other business units we have an additional 100-200 end users. We have about five different firewalls, yet almost all of our units are using FortiGate-VM. So, in total, we have about 500-600 users. 

The best part about FortiGate-VM is its strong security. Besides that, it's nice that there are different models for different sizes of businesses. For example, there are models tailored to enterprise companies and small organizations, and the model that we are using is perfectly suitable for our usage.

One thing that can be better is added automation. And, on top of that, enhanced security when it comes to the automation itself.

I have been using Fortinet FortiGate-VM for five years.

I think it is stable. 

I am impressed by its scalability, given that we are already using it for over 500 users. And, in future, we plan to increase usage even more. 

We have used Palo Alto before, but we switched because at that time Fortinet was more scalable and there were more options available.

I also use Sophos Firewall, though not within the organization, but rather just for small business or personal use.

Currently, we only require the services of three engineers and administrators on our technical team when it comes to deployment and maintenance.

The license we pay is a yearly fee. I can't say it's very expensive; it is a good price and is highly suitable for our usage.

FortiGate-VM is a good solution, and I would say one of the best solutions on the market.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I occasionally implement Fortinet for clients. 

In the most recent instance, we had a cloud implemented and I was driving the infrastructure. The client had separate areas inside it purposely. They needed to implement a FortiGate solution in the same client, with different VMs, for different clients, to make different areas for these clients. 

It's great that we can have separate services for the same client. 

It's a complete solution. You only need to deploy it once. You can have many clients and many services for these clients in the same VM. It's a solution that works very well for companies that may need separated sections.

It makes things less expensive for clients. The pricing is good.

The interface is decent.

Technical support has a lot of knowledge.

The initial setup is simple. 

The solution is stable.

It can scale well.

The solution could use very well-defined support for resellers. There isn't necessarily 24/7 support and resolution.

The interface could be improved. 

The product could have more protocol routing options. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

If you need to scale, this is a good option.

The technical support is pretty good. We are quite satisfied with the level of service on offer. 

The initial setup process is very easy and straightforward. It's not difficult or complex. 

We only need three people for deployment and maintenance. It's not a solution that requires a big team. You might need one or two field engineers. 

I'm working in a Fortinet partner company. I'm a reseller.

I'm dealing with the latest version of the product.

I like the 100F version, and it may be a good option for most clients, however, it might not be right for every company. It's a good idea to figure out what you need before you decide to avoid purchasing something that's not right for your company's needs.

We use FortiGate-VM to access clients' networks. These are generally Azure cloud environments in which we set up resources for clients to use.

The most valuable FortiGate-VM features are the ease of use and setup. 

Sometimes, FortiGate-VM is a little different to set up than other firewalls that I've managed. It would be better if it was just a little more mainstream. Some more documentation would be nice as well. Documentation has always kind of been our problem with FortiGate-VM. 

There's a lot of stuff I like about FortiGate-VM, but like I said, we still do a lot more Palo Alto firewalls than anything because they have true layer-seven attack prevention. FortiGate-VM does have that too, but it doesn't work as well. I would like to see more layer-seven functionality and expect to realistically block things at the top level.

We have been using this solution for two years. 

FortiGate-VM is stable. They have been okay for everything that I have done with them.

I have worked on some of the largest and smallest solutions that Fortinet sells and they all scale really well.

The initial setup is straightforward and only takes hours to deploy. 

We implemented FortiGate-VM in-house. 

Make sure that you're on the latest stable versions when you update code and stuff like that. That's one of the things that we've had some issues with in the past. 

My primary use case of this solution is for advanced security in the cloud, as well as SD-WAN and branch connectivity. We use version 6.4 and are just now moving to 7.0. 

FortiGate-VM has many valuable features: it's easy to use, it's intuitive, it's got very good traffic inspection features, it's got comprehensive filtering categories, and it has an extensive threat database, using FortiGuard. 

FortiGate-VM could be improved by making it cloud-based. I'd like it to be a cloud-based management solution instead of just a dedicated management orchestration tool. 

I have been using FortiGate-VM for five years. 

Personally, I like Fortinet support. I know other colleagues and people think it's slow, but I don't.

I used FortiGate for 10 years. I also have experience with Azure Firewall Premium, Cisco ASA, and Cisco Firepower. 

The installation is really easy. There's HA deployment in the marketplace involving Azure and AWS. I handle the installation myself. 

I implement this solution myself for customers. 

There are yearly or monthly licenses which you can choose from. 

I rate FortiGate-VM an eight out of ten. I recommend this solution to others. There's a use case, like any cloud-based firewall. 

We're an MSP, so we sell, configure, and manage these solutions for customers. 

My primary use case is for controlling the internet in our organization, as well as for our VPN for those working from home. I also use it for routing the connection to stores so we can access them.

This solution allows us to easily access the stores from where we are. It also blocks a lot of websites that we don't want to allow access to during working hours. It has also made our network more secure, and it's now much harder for people to intrude into our network.

The most valuable feature is that its IPsec works perfectly. The work filter also works perfectly - it's able to detect anything coming in that is not supposed to be on the network.

We have had some issues with connecting to the VPN from home after firmware updates, which could be an area for improvement.

I have been using this solution for about five years.

I think the product's stability is very good.

The scalability depends on what you want to use it for - previously, we were using 60D, and it wasn't accommodating some features we wanted, so we had to go to 100D.

The technical support is very helpful.

I previously used pfSense but found it was a bit complicated in terms of configuration and didn't give periodic updates. I switched to FortiGate because they were very consistent in giving updates on outbreaks and what they were doing to resolve them.

The setup was straightforward because of the integrator's help. Deployment took about two days, and only my assistant and I were required for deployment and maintenance.

I implemented through an integrator.

Our main ROI has been the extra stability on our network - since we implemented this solution, we haven't had any major attacks.

The cost of this product is too high on a yearly license. The license can be renewed on a monthly or yearly basis. There are additional costs for extra features.

To me, this is one of the best firewalls I've ever used. I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.