We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiClient and Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)."I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"The most valuable feature is the analysis, because of the beta structure."
"The product detects and blocks threats and is more proactive than firewalls."
"I get alerts when scripts are detected in the environment."
"Fortinet FortiEDR made our clients feel secure and more at ease, knowing that they had an EDR solution that would close the gap in their security posture."
"The main thing is that I feel safe. Because the processes that have been used to get a handle on the attackers are much better than other competitors"
"The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the ability to customize it and to reduce its size. It lets you run in a very small window in terms of memory and resources on legacy cash registers."
"The Fortinet FortiClient is simple to use."
"This solution makes it easier to work from home."
"Remote connectivity is its most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiClient is dual authentication and the VPN is secure."
"This solution is very stable."
"Installation was easy."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its integration capabilities. The processing is fast and the reporting is also very good."
"What I find valuable in FortiClient is its patch management capabilities, allowing remote updates efficiently."
"The fact that it is a cloud proxy solution is another feature we like. For example, if you acquire a new company, you can use it to protect that new company without the need to install anything physically on their networks."
"Accessing the internet with a proxy from anywhere is the most valuable feature. It ensures that users are only able to browse legitimate websites. If they happen to go to a legitimate website with a malicious payload, the isolation feature will take care of that."
"For us, the primary goal is protection on the web, and that's extremely important. We're not using any of the other services at this time. The web part is key to the success of the organization. It gives us the ability to protect. It can isolate. It opens the session in an isolated format so that the code isn't running locally. It is running over in the Menlo environment, not in ours. It is not running on the local computer, whereas if you were to go to a normal website, it would run Java or something else on the local machine and potentially execute the malicious code locally. So, it does give us that level of protection."
"It has reduced security events to follow up on. While it is not 100%, there has been probably a 90% or more reduction. We were getting hit left, right, and center constantly from people browsing the Internet and hitting bad websites. It was not just bad websites that were stood up to be malicious, but good sites that were compromised."
"FortiEDR could add a separate scanning dashboard. In incident management, we prefer to remove the endpoint system from the environment and scan the system. We typically use Symantec for that, but if we want to use FortiEDR for that, then we need a scanning tab to clarify things."
"We'd like to see more one-to-one product presentations for the distribution channels."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"The support needs improvement."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"There's room for improvement in the quick response time and technical support for integration issues, especially when dealing with multiple vendors."
"Detections could be improved."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The solution should have faster turnaround when it comes to new technology."
"I heard that Fortinet is going to enhance the firmware to have mobile versions. One is like Linux long-term support SCS and one with new features, but there is no support here. We spoke with the vendor multiple times, and they said that they will release these features soon."
"The deployment status is not good in Mac devices and sometimes in Windows-based devices using GPO, like Active Directory, that are not on the local network."
"Working with Distribution sometimes comes at a cost due to a lack of knowledge of the current status of your licensing and products."
"We'd like to see a deployment wizard to help implementation become streamlined."
"Technical support needs to determine priority level based on the cases rather than the support package bundle."
"Sometimes there are issues when we are trying to connect."
"The pricing of the solution should be less expensive."
"In the best of all worlds, we wouldn't have to make any exceptions. However, that is a big ask because a lot of that depends on how websites are constructed. For example, there are some very complex, application-oriented sites that we end up making exceptions for. It is really not that big an issue for us to make the exceptions. We feel like we are doing that without a huge impact on our security posture, but we do have to make some exceptions for complex sites, e.g., mostly SaaS-type sites and applications."
"The user monitoring could still be improved."
"We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution."
"Currently, I don't have a good way to see which of my rules are being used in the access control lists. I have numerous entries, but are they all still needed? A report that would show me my list of who is allowed and whether we're actually using it would be useful because I can then go clean up my list. It would be easier to manage. We would eliminate the vulnerability of unused services."
More Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 14th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 86 reviews while Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is ranked 21st in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 4 reviews. Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0, while Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiClient writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly with good support ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway writes "Secures users wherever they are and enable us to inspect SSL traffic, but we encountered too many issues". Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway and Ivanti Connect Secure, whereas Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Talon, Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Skyhigh Security.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
