Fortinet FortiWLM Reviews

I use Fortinet FortiWLM for wireless communication and the internet. 

The solution should improve user capacity. 

I have been working with the solution for three months. 

I rate Fortinet FortiWLM's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a ten out of ten. 

Fortinet FortiWLM's installation was easy. 

The tool offers good returns on business. 

Fortinet FortiWLM's pricing is regular and competitive. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

The solution is used as a wireless router.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the management.

The technical support response time can use improvement.

The pricing for the solution is expensive and can be improved.

I have been using the solution for eight years.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

The technical support team is knowledgeable but the response time can be improved.

Positive

I give the initial setup a nine out of ten. I like the way FortiGate devices manage the FortiAPs. Each AP takes between five and ten minutes to adapt to the FortiGate.

The solution is expensive. I give the solution a one out of ten for the price.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

At our company we're using mainly Fortinet, instead of, say, Cisco, for firewalls and other networking solutions that we offer to customers, and right now, we only have one customer who uses FortiWLM. Unfortunately the customer was not able to properly perform a site survey during the initial project, so they now have a few problems with their WiFi network. However, we don't attribute the problems they have encountered to FortiWLM itself. The customer did not follow the instructions during the installation when we asked them to position the access points in specific sections so as not to interfere with each other.

Because of this, our experience with FortiWLM hasn't been very good, and we have not implemented any further FortiWLM solutions for other customers to date. Though, I must emphasize that it was not because of a problem with FortiWLM. It was merely because a proper site survey was not performed from the beginning, and so the positioning of the access points was not optimal.

At the moment, particularly with the COVID-19 situation, the most valuable feature is probably the IPsec VPN, which is easy to implement and manage with Fortinet.

When compared with Sonic Wall and Palo Alto, Fortinet is more straightforward, whereas with the other solutions the procedure to implement the proper IT connections for end users was somewhat more complicated. I think that's a valuable point for Fortinet, when you consider all the SD-WAN technologies that they have. They are straightforward and go well together.

The interface could certainly do with some improvement. We have other customers with WiFi networks, and they always use Ubiquiti. With Ubiquiti, it's a much better user interface, and it is much easier to configure. I managed to get some certificates myself, so I can speak for some features that we need to consider on our wireless networks that are easier to implement with Ubiquiti which aren't so straightforward with Fortinet.

When it comes to Ubiquiti, we have something that we use a lot which is similar to a site survey. Once all the access points are positioned physically inside the office, we can perform a scan on the premises themselves, so the customers can find which channels have more interference, which have less interference, and automatically distribute channels for each access point, and make it so these access points do not cause interference with each other. That feature is extremely useful for us, and it is something that is sorely lacking in Fortinet FortiWLM.

With FortiWLM, we have to perform that type of survey manually, discovering which channels have less interference, and then manually distribute these channels to each access point.

My impressions on stability are good. 

It is certainly scalable.

The tech support is good. I don't have any complaints. We have a lot of experience interacting with them and more often than not they can successfully work with us on solutions.

We have used Sonic Wall and Palo Alto products before, yet we have definitely found Fortinet to be more straightforward.

The setup is easy. Of course, I don't think it's as easy as with Ubiquiti, as that's a big sales point for them. Fortinet still has some catching up to do in this regard, but the setup is not that difficult compared to other solutions such as Meraki.

Our implementations with Fortinet solutions vary with the customer size. For a small to medium company of up to 200-250 employees, I'd say a team of four specialists would be required.

If we are only using FortiGate and FortiWLM, and if we have more products such as for email and for the client, and for the endpoints, then maybe a specialist just for Fortinet, and four to five extra people.

In general, I would say that at least two engineers would be required for a medium-sized company of about 250 employees. 

To save yourself from increased setup and maintenance costs, I highly recommend undertaking a proper site survey from the beginning. 

Fortinet FortiWLM is a good solution, though I must add that it is of paramount importance that whoever implements any WiFi solution ⁠— be it Fortinet or any other solution ⁠— must complete a site survey. In our experience with currently our only FortiWLM customer, we did not have a good experience, but again, it was simply because they did not perform a proper survey, and there's not much more to said. A site survey is very important.

I would rate Fortinet FortiWLM a seven out of ten. 

We have used the solution in an electrical company, however, they are using it for Internet only access. That is being used as the main connection to the network and is completely separate as it is being used only for Internet access on mobile devices mostly.

I have used the multiple feature keys that were available and they allow each user to have their own feature key. 

A good feature is the IP security profiles, IPFS, anti-virus, RIP filtering, as that can be used with FortiGate as a wireless controller.

The solution is stable.

Technical support is helpful.

The scalability is good.

Although there are a few steps, the initial setup is pretty straightforward.

There is a need to put a logging device in, which could be an analyzer, so that, if you want to have an inside-up graph and weekly and monthly graphics reports, you'd be able to do so.

When using the FortiGate as the wireless controller, you cannot have automatic user registration, which is something that they should offer. That way, you can email the user, in their account, and it would be easier.

We haven't heard any negative feedback about the stability. The clients seem happy. I haven't heard of bugs or glitches. It's reliable.

The scalability is good. Our clients seem happy with its capabilities.

In terms of technical support, it depends on your license. From my experience, they have been available at any time and they can help with troubleshooting by going into the command line and stuff like that. They are helpful and responsive.

The initial setup is a little more work due to the fact that we have to set up the controller. It's not as difficult, however, you have more steps.

For a small setup, you only need one person to manage the implementation.

I have not looked into ROI as of yet.

We are a Fortinet partner. I have used the U 231, the U 431F versions of the solution.

You can implement this solution and get authentication, and we'd like to see more features for onboarding and reporting.

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

I have a friend who used to work at Sun Microsystems and when they were bought by Oracle he moved to Fortinet Switzerland. Now he is the boss of the wireless section of Fortinet Switzerland. We are building an apartment building with 30 floors that is the tallest residential building in the country. The name is Jabee Tower in Dübendorf. We have two penthouse flats there and each flat has 14 wireless access points. That is more access points than you could have with any other normal wifi system; you can not buy this kind of access capability through another vendor.  

We have committed to the technology and now we are dependent on the Fortinet controller and the V2 cell technology which is exclusive to Fortinet. Fortinet obtained this by buying out a company called Meru Systems which is the inventor of the concept of V2 cell. The product allows their product to always maintain the same SSID (Service Set Identifier) for the BSSID (Basic Service Set Identifier) clients using the service. It is a kind of breakthrough in technology. So it is really unique and there is no competition for this type of solution at the moment. That is why Fortinet is the leading manufacturer in this area of cell technology.  

The leading-edge technology was the reason I came to use Fortinet — not only because my friend was working there. But because their technology is very much on the leading edge of the marketplace we have a lot of interesting opportunities.  

The concept of V2R cell services [similar to wifi hotspot technology], is a concept where a controller monitors the access points in the installation. It is possible to reduce the transmission power and that can reduce exposure of users and the community to the electrobiological effects of wifi. The goal is to try to reduce the radio power necessary and to only transmit the signal that you have to transmit to reach the access point.  

In my work, I try to protect people from electronic emissions and V2R is one of my weapons against the current problems with exposure to wifi. You do not have to go blindly like Norway does and transmit with 100 milliwatts or 200 milliwatts of exposure if you have a better solution like V2R.  

So the concepts where the controller is involved must be used in order to reach these goals at this time. In the Aruba product there is also a solution for the controller, but it does not do as much as the Fortinet. So Fortinet is alone on the ground level with this new concept.  

On the other hand, the V2R cell solution has a limited lifespan because we know that wifi six is coming up. Wifi six is solving the transmission problems of wifi roaming in a different way. But for now, there is no competition for the V2R cell.  

Something that can be improved by Fortinet is the organization-wide policy on service contracts. I find that it is a little bit stressful. They have a business model where whatever you buy, you must make a service contract. You can do that for one year or three years or five years. But it seems a little bit like a moneymaking machine rather than a necessity. They require these service contracts and that is not always so well accepted by the clients.  

To judge the circumstances of the market by bigger business clients who can afford these additional fees may not be the best way to create policy. I work mostly with smaller clients on the threshold of breaking into a bigger business landscape. Mostly those clients are private people and for these people, these business requirements Fortinet has in place are not the best way to build up their successes.  

I guess I cannot criticize their practices as failing because the company is obviously successful with it. I understand that they also need to make money for evolution, for research and development to stay competitive. But for the private sector, there is a gap. You have these professional suppliers like Aruba and Fortinet and then you have the small suppliers whose products you can buy in the shop around the corner. There is nothing in between. I think Fortinet could be more friendly toward smaller companies and individuals so they could have success with the products while building their businesses and then they are more likely to continue to use the products later.  

I guess one other improvement they might consider making is with the design of the product. They do not have the most beautiful equipment I have seen in my life. They could hire a designer and the products could be improved substantially in a visual way.  

I have been using this product for about one year.  

The stability is perfect. I have no problems with the product in that way.  

My clients could be any size: small, medium or enterprise companies. It does not matter but for the costs. All size users can be my clients, but for the moment I am mostly involved with private clients. I am involved in electrobiology in my personal endeavors. Wifi is on the corner of our activity because it is part of this field somewhat tangentially, but I am more of a consultant in electrobiology with an interest in how radio transmissions from wifi affects people.  

I had some calls with Fortinet technical support, which is in India, and I had some very good experiences with their team. It was very professional and I got my answers within a reasonable time.  

I'm quite happy with both their online support and telephone support. It is very professional and there is nothing to complain about in that respect.  

Before Fortinet Wireless, I was working with Aruba. Aruba was not bad and we did use it quite a bit before it was bought by HP. But it did not have the same capabilities as Fortinet. We also used ASUS [a name derived from Pegasus] Access Point for some time. I have used modified third-party firmware called Tomato that can help control the behavior of different routers from other manufacturers. I also used DD-WRT [DD is the German car numberplate code for Dresden, Germany; WRT is "Wireless Receiver/Transmitter"] which is another third-party firmware solution.  

When we started, we were using Linksys hardware a lot and then we switched to ASUS hardware. Then we went with this special firmware Tomato released for our ASUS hardware. That was a good solution and it was our main product for a while. It was a progression over time.  

The difficulty of the initial setup probably depends a lot on the level of user who is trying to use it. In the beginning, it took me only one day to do the setup because I had some similar experience. It took me one day for Aruba and it took me one day for Fortinet. The average, intelligent person can learn to set up this solution in a short period of time. But I would not say that it is intuitive for just anyone. You have to learn some theory about the controller and what the controller is doing. You have to read a few manuals. But it is almost intuitive, in general, and easy if you have some experience and are willing to learn. It is not made for a common laborer or for a housewife. It is made for an engineer who can read the manual and understand what is supposed to happen. It is quite usable in that case.  

We do the deployments and implementations ourselves.  

Fortinet would do something with their pricing model to attract smaller business users and eliminate the mandatory service contracts.  

There is currently no competition for the Fortinet product. My experience over time with providing wifi solutions was my evaluation period.  

My advice to people is that the V2R radio solution is very good and that they should give it a try. Get a few access points — the minimum is two — to experience the V2R access concept.  

When I was first playing with the solution, I set up the software controller on a virtual machine in the lab. Just with two access points, one controller and the V2 concept. That was an eye-opening experience. When you see it working, you immediately become a fan. You will make a prayer for this technology.  

What is not so good is that Meru came out with the solution a little too late because now it will have a limited life and it will die. In five years, it will be obsolete. That is the long-term downside, but for the moment there is no alternative.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Fortinet Wireless as a nine-out-of-ten. They could improve a few things like the fact that the access points get a little hot and use a lot of energy. It is running at 30 watts per access point. Also, you need to power the access points over the ethernet, so the ethernet power must be strong. It is not possible to power it from switches. They should do something about the power problem.  

But even with the drawbacks, my recommendation to others would be to give the solution a try.  

The most valuable features are central management and the many other features available.

The roaming of Fortinet FortiWLM could improve when comparing it to other solutions. We are missing some of the functionality in the controller. Additionally, they should offer more logs instead of using FortiAnalyzer because all the users will not be using the same thing.

I have been using Fortinet FortiWLM for approximately two weeks.

You need to understand the concept first before you can implement the solution. You need to be familiar with networking first to be able to install Fortinet FortiWLM.

I rate Fortinet FortiWLM an eight out of ten.

We are similar to our customer implementation. We provide a switch, we have provided even the firewall, Apache, and SolarWinds solutions. So when we are talking about Apache, completely it is taken out first. Then monitoring or patching with iPhones, it is much better. It is very simplified when comparing it to any other product. I think the product doesn't have challenges. I didn't find any challenges with Fortinet Wireless.

Documentation could be improved.

I have been using and selling Fortinet Wireless for 13 years.

We have been very happy with the stability of the product.

Fortinet Wireless is very scalable.

Once you have a subscription, it works. After that, you open tickets with their technical support. There's no other challenge. We haven't needed to contact technical support as everything is pretty straightforward.

In many of my other previous companies, Fortinet Wireless has been used. I haven't had many challenges. Apart from that, when I became a system integrator, I found that It's really good when comparing it to any other product or it is much better in terms of features that the customer requires.

I have my own team who are satisfied with the product. There are two or three engineers on the team. They normally handle the implementation of Fortinet Wireless.

The licensing is all contained in the purchase and implementation. The customer will look at the licensing at purchase and make sure all is in order. All the subscriptions that are relevant for the purchase and maintenance are involved. The implementation will be monitored and have a secure wireless connection.

We have a partnership with Sophos also. But with Sophos, we have a lot of customers, more than with Fortinet. When you compare the features and, reliability and performance, Fortinet is better.

Fortinet Wireless is a very good product, in terms of reliability and in terms of configuration also. I would rate Fortinet wireless at a nine out of ten.

Our primary use is for official purposes. On our campus, there are two employees who have a laptop and move here and there, and sub-faculties are always trying to connect to Google or other resources, for any documentation purposes. The facility is huge. So for online purposes, we give them the flexibility so that wherever they are on campus they can easily connect to the internet.

All their features are common. Nothing more. All the features are controlled behind the Fortinet firewall. Is there any wireless controller to balance the load? Or what report do they give for the stated purpose? Basically, we need to put more focus on the reporting end for their sustainability.

I have been using Fortinet Wireless for the last five years.

The product is a stable solution.

In terms of scalability, we will not replace Fortinet for our staff purposes. But we have a very large group of students for whom we are planning to use it to give them online education. For that purpose, we are planning to handle the number of 40,000 students on our campus so that we can synchronize real data over any streaming material or tablet.

Because of that, because of the technology changes every year, this is not suitable for the search crowd.

Technical support is very poor. We are not satisfied with the technical support because there is not any direct person from Fortinet for any troubleshooting, which we expected.

On a scale from one to 10, where one is the worst and 10 is the best, I would rate Fortinet Wireless three out of 10.

You may discuss this with any of the other clients who are using Fortinet. I think you will find out what kind of support Fortinet gives because there is no direct person involved from the Fortinet side to give client support. They depend on the mediator or integrators or suppliers. They help. They are trained but they are not from Fortinet. I would not go with Fortinet. You can think of it as a customer buying a Fortinet product from the company and the company has stopped their service. Then who will look after those clients? 

So I think there should be a direct person who provides service to the client. It could either be a portal or there could be another way to improve the services.