Fortinet FortiWLM Reviews

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.

We started the utilization in our warehouse to improve the connection for our hand scanner and cameras. 

The Access Points work with two radios (2.4GHz and 5GHz) and it was the best feature because some scanners are new with AC wireless support. The firewall integration was another good feature because is very fast to setup.

The firewall integration is very important for the security of the connection. For each SSID it's possible to create rules to specify connections.

This solution should be easier to set up in a production environment.

We intend to implement this solution in our production area and eventually replace cable connections with wireless service.

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.

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. 

The most valuable features are the roaming profile, the mesh, and the performance.

Areas for improvement would be the compatibility with Apple products and cross-platform integration. In the next release, I would like them to include accessibility authentication for user authentication.

I've been using this solution for two and a half years.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup was easy.

I implemented using an in-house team.

Once you install this solution, it just runs properly and gets the job done. I would rate it as ten out of ten.

My clients use Fortinet FortiWLM for wireless management in healthcare, hospitality, and office settings.

Fortinet FortiWLM is good for tracking assets, monitoring, and overall management.

In the next release, they could improve by adding a controller-less server, or architecture that is provided in other solutions, such as Aruba. This would be a great benefit for customers. Additionally, they could improve the feature sets to be more competitive.

The solution is stable and highly reliable. We do not have any complaints from customers.

We have currently three clients using this solution.

For critical infrastructure in healthcare and government, we find Aruba a better solution for their requirements.

If we are redoing an installation of an existing network are some difficulties but a typical installation is not difficult.

There is a perpetual license required for this solution and the price could be reduced.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate Fortinet FortiWLM a seven out of ten.