We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiClient and Symantec Endpoint Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"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."
"This is stable and scalable."
"Fortinet has helped free up around 20 percent of our staff's time to help us out."
"We have FortiEDR installed on all our systems. This protects them from any threats."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The ease of deployment and configuration is valuable. It's very easy compared to other vendors like Sophos. Sophos' configuration is complex. Fortinet is a lot easier to understand. You don't need a lot of admin knowledge to do the configuration."
"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."
"From an application perspective, this solution is stable."
"I use the tool to connect server to an ISP Data Center."
"From Forticlient, the EMS, the central management is easy to use."
"You can scale the product."
"I find it very easy to configure and also very stable."
"The return on investment was very reasonable. It was low cost and it functioned, so the return on investment was excellent."
"For our clients with remote sites and deployed firewalls, the filtering and authentication features are very helpful."
"It is a scalable product."
"I think the key thing for me, is interoperability, in that you can deploy it to Windows, Mac, and Linux. That's been a really important feature in the last two years. Now there's one management console to cover all three OSs."
"Managing SEP is very easy, and also troubleshooting part is easily managed."
"This solution helps in that I can control quite a few computers from our central location, with ease."
"Threat protection has always worked well."
"The most useful features are the antivirus, anti-spyware, and the firewall feature. It also provides application control and Host Integrity, which is a very unique feature."
"Scalability."
"It's good at detecting signature-based stuff and stopping that."
"The initial setup is very simple and straightforward."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"Detections could be improved."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"The only minor concern is occasional interference with desired programs."
"We find the solution to be a bit expensive."
"It takes about two business days for initial support, which is too slow in urgent situations."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"Its stability can be improved. It is not as reliable as I would like it to be. There are times when things don't work quite right. Our biggest pain point is not related to Fortinet FortiClient and the whole scheme of things. It is related to one of the additional services called FortiGuard. They are the arm that does all of the updates to definitions, keeps all the signatures updated, and responds to new threats and whatnot. What we have found is that they react quickly, but sometimes their solutions aren't compatible with all of the components of the Fortinet security suite, specifically around FortiSandbox."
"In the next release, I would like to see an additional layer of security added."
"Fortinet FortiClient could improve the compatibility with mobile applications that are allowed and sometimes they do not respond. However, Microsoft Windows applications are very good."
"Technical support is awful. Their online response time is not prompt. They should not respond after four or five days. Their support guys are not competent enough. Small issues are taking time."
"The user interface on the central server could be improved."
"I haven't found that that solution does anything amazing."
"The solution could add data to the endpoint."
"The only thing that is lacking in this product is the support. Their support can be improved."
"There are a few negative points. They should separate the feature for each separate solution for mobile devices. The second one is about the price, it's expensive. Finally, the third would be the complexity of implementation."
"If a machine is infected by ransomware, it's hard to recover the data. We don't have any data on the client, so we're not overly concerned about that. Still, it would be nice to have this feature if there are any future problems."
"I would like to see fileless attack protection."
"The support can be wanting. Sometimes the time to resolution is longer than I would expect."
"There is room for improvement in the zero-day threat detection system."
"We must have complete dissolution with advance care protection but we are finding out that we need more Symantec technical specialists. We have identified a need to hire at least one more technical specialist familiar with Symantec to improve our solutions capabilities."
"The stability was not the best. There were times when antivirus updates broke it. It wasn't necessarily self-updating - at least, not in terms of the virus signatures. It updated in terms of the executable files. Therefore, when Windows updates would come out, they often couldn't be installed, or the computer would hang due to the fact that the updates weren't compatible with the antivirus."
"Sometimes, when we are creating a new policy, some of the clients are not being updated with the latest policy."
Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 15th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 86 reviews while Symantec Endpoint Security is ranked 5th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 140 reviews. Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0, while Symantec Endpoint Security is rated 7.6. 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 Symantec Endpoint Security writes "The solution has given us visibility into compliance within our whole system and helped us ensure everything is updated". Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway and Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, whereas Symantec Endpoint Security is most compared with Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, Trend Micro Deep Security and Cortex XDR by Palo Alto Networks. See our Fortinet FortiClient vs. Symantec Endpoint Security report.
See our list of best Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) vendors.
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.